Former creationist looks forward to Bill Nye's debate with Ken Ham

Excellent essay! But will creationists listen?

Most scientists just shouldn't debate creationists, since they're not used to dealing with a completely different--and false--"reality." And, for the few scientists who do know how to publicly debate creationists--rules should be set and enforced so that soundbites don't dominate, and debaters either have to answer or be seen as deliberately not answering.

But I think it would have been encouraging to me when I was coming out of creationism to see a good debater step up to the plate, and give answers as opposed to creationist platitudes from the other side. The basics of evolutionary evidence are not too difficult to present, and, if the science side stresses the lack of any real answers from the creationist side, anyone who can be reached could have a chance when watching a competent person defending science.

If Nye is truly prepared when he debates, it could be a good youtube resource for years to come.

Glen Davidson

David MacMillan's story is similar to mine. My acceptance of biological evolution was far from an overnight conversion, as I desperately tried to cling to the YECism I grew up on. I went down swinging, even trying a few Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks on the way down.

Intro biology in college caused some turbulence, but my YECism survived. But intro geology was a different story for me, and it helped that the Kitzmiller trial happened afterwards (with not only ID getting pasted, but with two YEC Dover school board members caught lying under oath [Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell] ).

From there, it was the adding up of many little things. Such as teaching myself about evo-devo, molecular genetics, and other evidence for biological evolution that I didn't grasp in college biology (partly because I partied too much that semester).

Such as learning how biologist Ken Saladin humiliated Duane Gish by exposing Gish telling a bald-faced lie (regarding ICR funding of expeditions to find the Ark) at a 1988 debate at Auburn University; even fundamentalists in the audience were stunned and openly disappointed in their hero Gish.

Such as learning that Christian science groups like the American Scientific Affiliation, Affiliation of Christian Geologists, and Affiliation of Christian Biologists accept all Christians with science credentials whether they are YEC, OEC, accept biological evolution. Yet YECs represent only a tiny percentage of the membership of these organizations (of course, groups like ICR, AIG, and the Creation Research Society exclude Christians that reject YECism and reject a world Flood).

Such as learning that the late Walter Lang (founder of the Bible Science Association) admitted that he felt that of ex-evolutionists turned creationists, only about five percent did so because of scientific evidence. Just five percent.

But I have no big illusions that most anti-evolutionists will change overnight, even if Bill Nye follows the great success that Ken Miller and Ken Saladin had in their debates against the likes of Gish and Henry Morris. I still have family members that are solid YECs despite me and a few other relatives ditching their YECism. Unfortunately, I think it will be more of a case of anti-evolutionists taking their beliefs to their graves and the new generations slowly but surely becoming more science literate; thus many of us may not live long enough to see a large drop in anti-evolutionism.

Tenncrain said: David MacMillan's story is similar to mine. My acceptance of biological evolution was far from an overnight conversion, as I desperately tried to cling to the YECism I grew up on. I went down swinging, even trying a few Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks on the way down. Intro biology in college caused some turbulence, but my YECism survived. But intro geology was a different story for me, and it helped that the Kitzmiller trial happened afterwards (with not only ID getting pasted, but with two YEC Dover school board members caught lying under oath [Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell] ). From there, it was the adding up of many little things. Such as teaching myself about evo-devo, molecular genetics, and other evidence for biological evolution that I didn't grasp in college biology (partly because I partied too much that semester).

Such as learning how biologist Ken Saladin humiliated Duane Gish by exposing Gish telling a bald-faced lie (regarding ICR funding of expeditions to find the Ark) at a 1988 debate at Auburn University; even fundamentalists in the audience were stunned and openly disappointed in their hero Gish.

Because so much of what I’d been taught was flatly false, I had to relearn practically everything about biology, geology, and the history of science. I’m amazed by the amount of evidence I systematically ignored or explained away, just because it didn’t match creation science.

I wouldn’t claim to know everything about the Bible, but I do know Ken Ham’s insistence on “Biblical origins” is as phony as the rest of creation science. I had never known creationism was invented only a scant fifty years ago (six-day young-earth creationism was never a fundamentalist dogma until the 1960’s). I had never known that all Christians accepted the Bible’s creation account as deliberate allegory many centuries before scientists even knew the earth revolved around the sun.

FL said: But that paragraph above tells me, flat-out, that MacMillan's knowledge of creationism and Bible (at least today), is apparently far lower than his knowledge of physics and science. So, like I said, I'll just borrow that one paragraph and gently put it on the dissection table down by the Wall.

FL said:

I wouldn’t claim to know everything about the Bible, but I do know Ken Ham’s insistence on “Biblical origins” is as phony as the rest of creation science. I had never known creationism was invented only a scant fifty years ago (six-day young-earth creationism was never a fundamentalist dogma until the 1960’s). I had never known that all Christians accepted the Bible’s creation account as deliberate allegory many centuries before scientists even knew the earth revolved around the sun.

I am taking this part with me, back to the Bathroom Wall, for a relaxing exercise in dissection and, well, debunking. FL

FL said: But I also get the part about how MacMillan lost all that creationist "Bible-believing Christian" fire and fervor as soon as he set one foot in the university science hall. Okay, that's understood too.

Robert Byers said: What's a prominent scientist?? What are the degrees of hierarchy here? Is this nye guy a scientist or another TV scientist?

I speculate he agreed to the debate because he violently accused hordes of creationists and christians of doing child abuse by teaching their kids creationism is true and not evolution. I speculate he regrets this and thinks it hurt the evolution counter reformation movement.

FL said: I also get the part about how MacMillan lost all that creationist "Bible-believing Christian" fire and fervor as soon as he set one foot in the university science hall. Okay, that's understood too. But that paragraph above tells me, flat-out, that MacMillan's knowledge of creationism and Bible (at least today), is apparently far lower than his knowledge of physics and science.

Scott F wrote: It would be one thing to say, “Look, Evolution is really clever and all that, but our Creationist ideas explain reality better.”

Creationism, as exemplified by the statement of faith of AIG, requires that any knowledge, any facts, any observations that do not conform to the Bible be flat out rejected.

Robert, this is the only hit from Google (other than a bald claim from Ken Ham), where "Bill Nye" and "child abuse" are in the same context. In here, Lawrence Krauss calls creationism "child abuse". Bill Nye does not.

Watch this video. It's only 9 minutes. The beginning and ending are a bit weird, but the central part of the video is a plea from the heart to teach science correctly.

Yeah FL tha's why he started by saying, "I woudn't claim to know everything about the bible.." His knowledge, thank buddah, is more directed to reality than lovely stories.(And some not so lovely stories.)

FL do you take pride in being able to quote that book? I am actually more impressed, and learn more, and am more amused and enlightened by those who can do the Hamlet soliloquay. Better writing and a more honest author.

“Oh well, science will probably change its interpretation of that someday, and then you’ll know I’m right.”

Of course the obvious retort to that is that nothing has changed more than religion.

FL said: But I also get the part about how MacMillan lost all that creationist "Bible-believing Christian" fire and fervor as soon as he set one foot in the university science hall. Okay, that's understood too.

Despite four years of physics, it still took me a long time before I actually came to understand evolution, geology, and cosmology.

I'm not looking forward to Nye's "show" at all and I certainly don't want the bragging rights of "I told you so." This is one instance where I openly hope to be wrong in my preconceptions. That said, I'm not optimistic.

Nye is a TV personality. He has to be nice and accommodating, precisely the wrong attributes in dealing with old Scambo. I very much doubt that Nye has the guts to pull the pin on the nuclear hand grenade that would take out both Scambo and Nye's own career, that is, attacking the foundation of Scambo's scam, the Bible.

Watch Scambo's videos. He's very clear and direct on where he stands. No wiggle room. The Bible is true and all perception is based on that. Even his recent essay on "critical" thinking was based on first finding an authority figure, then making sure that authority figure was Biblically based. Nye has to go after Scambo like a hyena and not give an inch. Nye has to destroy Scambo's foundation unyieldingly.

Nye won't do it. (AronRa would!) This entire stunt is completely ill-founded. All Nye is going to do is lose the respect of every rationalist on the planet, if he hasn't already done so, and Scambo will increase his power and influence as having "faced down" Science. I can just hear Nye whining, "Well, at least we can agree to disagree." It's a disaster.

Learning the history of creationism freed me to examine the evidence for evolution. I wouldn’t claim to know everything about the Bible, but I do know Ken Ham’s insistence on “Biblical origins” is as phony as the rest of creation science. I had never known creationism was invented only a scant fifty years ago (six-day young-earth creationism was never a fundamentalist dogma until the 1960’s). I had never known that all Christians accepted the Bible’s creation account as deliberate allegory many centuries before scientists even knew the earth revolved around the sun.

Jon Fleming said: Far from all Christians accepted Genesis as allegory even in the 1800s, and I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of Christians believed it literal (to whatever extent they thought about it) before that. He's off on modern creationism too. George McCready Price and other seventh-day adventists pushed "flood geology" starting with "Illogical Geology" in 1906. "The Fundamentals" in 1910-1915 was a strong influence. It was somewhat dormant but still around until "The Genesis Flood" in 1961, when what we know today as YEC took final shape. But Morris and Whitcomb lifted wholesale from Price (without attribution).

Wrangling over the details aside, I think it's very interesting that the history of creationism was one of the key things that set you off. That is not the type of argument most scientific defenders of evolution would consider a "go to" one. We tend to want to address the scientific misconceptions first. But if correcting historical misconceptions works better, we should perhaps start using that tack more.

Doc Bill said: I'm not looking forward to Nye's "show" at all and I certainly don't want the bragging rights of "I told you so." This is one instance where I openly hope to be wrong in my preconceptions. That said, I'm not optimistic. Nye is a TV personality. He has to be nice and accommodating, precisely the wrong attributes in dealing with old Scambo. I very much doubt that Nye has the guts to pull the pin on the nuclear hand grenade that would take out both Scambo and Nye's own career, that is, attacking the foundation of Scambo's scam, the Bible. Watch Scambo's videos. He's very clear and direct on where he stands. No wiggle room. The Bible is true and all perception is based on that. Even his recent essay on "critical" thinking was based on first finding an authority figure, then making sure that authority figure was Biblically based. Nye has to go after Scambo like a hyena and not give an inch. Nye has to destroy Scambo's foundation unyieldingly. Nye won't do it. (AronRa would!) This entire stunt is completely ill-founded. All Nye is going to do is lose the respect of every rationalist on the planet, if he hasn't already done so, and Scambo will increase his power and influence as having "faced down" Science. I can just hear Nye whining, "Well, at least we can agree to disagree." It's a disaster.

Maybe the debate will turn out fine. Maybe BIll will get really pissed at Hambone and rip him a new one. That would be great, a mild mannered guy getting so upset by all the lies and dishonesty that he goes ballistic on the hammy. Of course then the creationists would probably just declare victory anyway and say that the emotional response was in appropriate in a "scientific" debate! The only hope is for Bill is to patiently and calmly call him a liar and prove it. Maybe he could even get Hambone to lose it if he plays it just right.

eric said: I think it's very interesting that the history of creationism was one of the key things that set you off. That is not the type of argument most scientific defenders of evolution would consider a "go to" one. We tend to want to address the scientific misconceptions first. But if correcting historical misconceptions works better, we should perhaps start using that tack more.

Please do not respond to the FL troll here. He has promised to post his revelations on the BW; please respond there if you cannot control your urges.

DS said: Maybe the debate will turn out fine.

eric said: Ham gave an interview yesterday and is already touting it as "a wonderful opportunity to present the creationist message" and saying "the debate will help point out that there is significant dissent in the scientific community about whether or not molecules-to-man evolution is a true explanation of origins." Link. So, uh, probably not. Given that AIG is already getting mileage out of the mere existence of the debate, and that Ham has outright said it's a platform to advertise creationism, Nye is going to have to hit a home run just to make the event worthwhile. He can't just hold his own, he's got to put on a performance so good that the creationists will be embarrassed to air the debate or acknowledged it happened. If he doesn't, they're going to get mileage out of the fact that it happened.

“the debate will help point out that there is significant dissent in the scientific community about whether or not molecules-to-man evolution is a true explanation of origins.”

Really? How could he possibly know what the debate will point out? All he knows is what he plans to say. I guess he just assumes that Bill won't be able to dispute this talking point. So there you go Bill, be prepared to refute this lie and show Ham up for the disingenuous huckster that he is.

DS said: “the debate will help point out that there is significant dissent in the scientific community about whether or not molecules-to-man evolution is a true explanation of origins.” Really? How could he possibly know what the debate will point out?

I guess he just assumes that Bill won't be able to dispute this talking point.

What Nye ought to do is to construct a set of links to the debunking of the usual creationist canards and have his assistants tweet the links in real-time during the debate. He might consider having an extra assistant with a duck call to blow as each canard is shot down.

Ken Ham said: “. . . molecules-to-man evolution . . .”

Kevin B said: What Nye ought to do is to construct a set of links to the debunking of the usual creationist canards and have his assistants tweet the links in real-time during the debate. He might consider having an extra assistant with a duck call to blow as each canard is shot down.

Kevin B said: What Nye ought to do is to construct a set of links to the debunking of the usual creationist canards and have his assistants tweet the links in real-time during the debate. He might consider having an extra assistant with a duck call to blow as each canard is shot down.

DS said: Sounds good. And he could have them ready to phone any expert that Ham claims doesn't believe in evolution.

Hello Rich, got a quick question for you. What, that's not what you meant at all. That's what I thought. Thanks Rich. Now Ken, here are the actual statistics showing that there is no scientific controversy whatsoever. What do you say to that?

Carl Drews said:

Ken Ham said: “. . . molecules-to-man evolution . . .”

I have seen this "molecules-to-man" phrase creep into Ken Ham's shtick over a few years. I think it is a tacit admission that AiG is losing. Ken Ham is widening the goalposts. Several decades ago YECs would crow about the alleged "missing link" between Australopithecines and modern humans. That gap has since been filled by the discovery of transitional hominid fossils. They can't crow any more. So Ham has to widen the goalposts so that they stretch from amino acids all the way to Homo sapiens. He figures that if he can just find a gap in there, somewhere, he will have disproved evolution. But he lost that battle long ago, because it's clear from fossil and genetic that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Ham's own words admit that he lost.

The clear genetic evidence linking humans and chimpanzees is, in my experience, the fastest way to back creationists into the "but I just can't trust science" corner. Which is close enough to victory for me.

beatgroover said:

The clear genetic evidence linking humans and chimpanzees is, in my experience, the fastest way to back creationists into the "but I just can't trust science" corner. Which is close enough to victory for me.

Long live chromosome 2!

I am not too surprised that a YEC getting a BS degree in physics was not sufficient to overcome a persons’s YECism immediately.

One of the characteristics I have noted about ID/creationists, especially YECs, is that there is something about their upbringing that makes it more probable that they will not internalize early learning in science.

Thus, even though knowledge of high school physics and chemistry is sufficient to call into question the Flood, or to show that the molecules of life do not violate the second law of thermodynamics, most YECs in particular would not have made the connections. They would not be able to see the implications of high school level calculations even if they were shown how to find the formulas in the textbook and how to use them in calculations. And they certainly would not have made the connections to biology through chemistry.

One can drift through an academic curriculum all the way to a PhD without ever noticing the consequences of the concepts one is supposedly learning; and if one is a YEC, one has been thoroughly steeped in techniques of keeping one’s head down and avoiding any confrontation with scientific realities. Just plug and chug, check the answer in the back of the book, and don’t think about what you are doing.

It is in fact the case that most, if not all ID/creationists, do not understand scientific concepts at the high school level; despite having gone to college and even getting advanced degrees. There is a systematic process of bending and breaking concepts to fit sectarian dogma that takes place among ID/creationists; YECs being the most proficiant at this game.

As I am sure many here have noticed, ID/creationists wannabe debaters will jump immediately into “advanced” concepts in science; pulling quote mines out of textbooks and the writings of scientists in order to appear erudite and intimidating. But this ploy is all fakery; and they always, to a person, avoid any opportunity to demonstrate that they understand science at the high school level. The most recent example I have seen took place over on UD where Sal Cordova did a long Gish Gallop to avoid the consequences of a calculation about the energies of interaction among atoms and molecules.

A scan of the Answers in Genesis website shows that Ken Ham is well aware of influencing the attitudes and emotions of children even before they have had a chance to encounter science in high school. ID/creationists know that instilling fear, suspicion, and loathing early in the lives of children will have lifelong consequences in how children will face learning in their futures. The filters will already be in place by the time these kids get to middle school.

I argued humans were created with 24 chromosome pairs, just like chimps, and that the fusion of chromosome 2 must have occurred after creation in the human population alone.

beatgroover said:

I argued humans were created with 24 chromosome pairs, just like chimps, and that the fusion of chromosome 2 must have occurred after creation in the human population alone.

Hahaha, "fall did it" type of escape hatch I guess? Hell, maybe Noah and his family had it and gave it to all of us after the flood genetic bottleneck. There's so much fun you can have with YEC reasoning because it isn't constrained by that pesky reality.

So you are proud of disobeying God and listening to unbelievers and their lies. How sad.

theologyarchaeology said: So you are proud of disobeying God and listening to unbelievers and their lies. How sad.

theologyarchaeology said: So you are proud of disobeying God and listening to unbelievers and their lies. How sad.

Mike Elzinga said: I am not too surprised that a YEC getting a BS degree in physics was not sufficient to overcome a persons’s YECism immediately. [snip]

theologyarchaeology said: So you are proud of disobeying God and listening to unbelievers and their lies. How sad.

david.starling.macmillan said:

beatgroover said:

The clear genetic evidence linking humans and chimpanzees is, in my experience, the fastest way to back creationists into the "but I just can't trust science" corner. Which is close enough to victory for me.

Long live chromosome 2!

Hilariously, I even had an explanation for chromosome 2 as a YEC. Obviously we had no trouble accepting that God created chimps and humans using some of the same chromosomes. So, as a YEC, I argued humans were created with 24 chromosome pairs, just like chimps, and that the fusion of chromosome 2 must have occurred after creation in the human population alone. When I learned that humans and chimps share the same mistakes in the inactivated GULO pseudogene...well, that's about the time it all started to break down.

david.starling.macmillan said: As I said, I probably came on too strong in this section. My point was not that no Christians ever advanced a six-day-creation view, but simply that six-day-creation was by no means the only view. There were plenty of people as early as the second century who subscribed to a day-age or framework interpretation; even Ussher's infamous chronology was based around each of the days of Genesis 1 allegorically representing a thousand years of human history. Six-day young-earth creationism was not, in any event, the unified dogmatic front that AiG falsely paints it to be.

John Harshman said: Where do you get the claim that he considered the 6 days of creation to be a thousand years? Ussher put creation at 4004 BC, so those six days must have been, to him, literal days.

David's story is also similar to mine. I ended up in Bible College getting two degrees. There was no science taught, but being surrounded by other YECs reinforced my belief in a 6,000 yr old earth. I gave a couple of impromptu talks in small groups. I even started arguing online with evolutionists once the internet became available.

Then I got bit by the astronomy bug, ordered books, got subscriptions to Sky and Telescope, Astronomy Today. After wrestling with the evidence I decided the universe was indeed older than 6000 years, but the earth was still 6,000 to 20,000 years old (no more than 100,000 for sure).

A few years later I went back to school for a BSc (biology). I found out much of what I thought I knew about evolution was just factually wrong. Other material was based on a twisted version. I started tracking down various YEC claims, and found they were based on misquotes, misunderstandings. It took about 10 years before I was able to work my way through all the changes and implications. My last step was admitting that humans did evolve, just like everything else. (actually, I think for the next five years or so, I was still slightly clinging to the hope that creationism would be found correct).

As David said it isn't just one belief that can be done away with, it is a whole system of reinforcing beliefs. If I hadn't gone back to school, I may have worked my way out in a different way (philosophically, for example, dissonance between claims and reality), but it may have taken me a lot longer.

For me, the big items were in seeing how I'd been misled. At the time, I didn't have the evidence to know much about evolution. But I could see how the difference between what YEC claimed and what the scientists/papers actually said was different.

That was a shock because my default assumption was that YEC people wouldn't lie because lying was of the devil. As a Christian, if you uttered a lie then that lie would be in your face every time you tried to talk to God. You'd get that nagging voice telling you to make things right first before coming to your Creator. If you lie and refuse to repent or turn from it, you have cut yourself off from God.

That someone who claimed to be a Christian would actually lie and then defend that lie was a complete shock. I can't emphasize that enough.

A lot of believers don't think YEC people/Answers in Genesis, or Ken Ham, would lie because it negates the whole purpose of their religion, which is to have a relationship with God. How could you have a relationship with God if you cut yourself off from him by deliberately lying or committing other sins that you don't repent? Just stunning.

Maybe if Bill can demonstrate YEC is supported by many lies, that'll shake a few who are listening in the audience. They'll likely reject it, but some may eventually be forced to follow the evidence for themselves.

Ussher's calculation was much more complex than assuming that 1 day = 1000 years. In fact, he used the chronologies in the Bible and correlated them with known ancient histories to estimate what happened when; see here. I am not an expert on Ussher, but he had to have been well-versed in ancient history and ancient languages to have pulled it off. Given the beliefs of the time, you could say that he was doing cutting-edge research, not just pulling some analogy out of thin air.

Carl Drews said:

John Harshman said: Where do you get the claim that he considered the 6 days of creation to be a thousand years? Ussher put creation at 4004 BC, so those six days must have been, to him, literal days.

Ussher's six 24-hour days of creation were also supposed to represent 1,000 years each for the total duration of the earth. Jesus' birth in 4 BC was at the 4ky mark. By that reckoning, the earth was supposed to cease existing in 1997, about the time of Bill Clinton's Second Inaugural.

Masked Panda (3ec7): How can you reliably distinguish lying from self-deception? It's easy to misunderstand evolution, even if you read the primary literature, if you really, really want to. Cases of outright lying exist, certainly, but I'm pretty sure they must be greatly outnumbered by cases of willful ignorance.

It is valuable to hear the perspectives of former YECs here. But I think holding Bill Nye to the standard that he will fail if he does not persuade a YEC audience is asking too much.

We have to keep in mind that there are many who will listen to the debate who are either undecided, or who accept the findings of evolutionary biology but need to learn how to persuade others. The debate could be valuable if it reaches these people and persuades them or enlightens them.

Ham will lose if he only convinces other YECs. All of which is not to say that I expect Nye to do well. I suspect that he is overconfident, and I know that the debate format is the wrong one for this argument, especially given the inadequate time to respond to the usual Gish Gallop.

Joe Felsenstein said: It is valuable to hear the perspectives of former YECs here. But I think holding Bill Nye to the standard that he will fail if he does not persuade a YEC audience is asking too much.

Is this a useful and understandable example of evidence for an old Earth?

1) Today, with GPS measurements in the US and Europe the widening of the Atlantic Ocean Basin has been measured at ~1 inch per year.

2) The Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 inches wide.

3) We know the widening has been slow and continuous from the slope of the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Q.E.D. Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 year old.

There is further evidence that the Earth is much older than the Atlantic Ocean Basin.

Many people have GPS navigators in their cars and can relate to GPS as a method to determine position and speed.

rob said: Is this a useful and understandable example of evidence for an old Earth? 1) Today, with GPS measurements in the US and Europe the widening of the Atlantic Ocean Basin has been measured at ~1 inch per year. 2) The Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 inches wide. 3) We know the widening has been slow and continuous from the slope of the mid-Atlantic ridge. Q.E.D. Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 year old. There is further evidence that the Earth is much older than the Atlantic Ocean Basin. Many people have GPS navigators in their cars and can relate to GPS as a method to determine position and speed.

Oops, sorry, forgot the smiley face.

eric said: I think what I'm hoping for is for Nye to use it as an opportunity to educate people about evolution.

I just had an epiphany.

Who, exactly, is "Bill Nye, The Science Guy"?

Not the person, but the persona.

"Bill Nye, The Science Guy" isn't a numbers fellow. He doesn't have a PhD. He hasn't published papers. What is he?

"Bill Nye, The Science Guy" is a public science educator! He's an entertainer. He speaks to kids, and he does so very effectively.

If Mr. Bill Nye gets into a numbers game, he's going to lose. If Mr. Bill Nye gets into a Gish Gallop, he's going to lose. If Mr. Bill Nye gets into a argument about who has the better "authority", he's going to lose.

How can Mr. Bill Nye win? He can't. But, Bill Nye The Science Guy has a chance. If BNTSG can offer his enthusiasm and excitement about Science, then he has a chance. If BNTSG can connect with the pre-high-school level of understanding in the YEC audience, then he has a chance.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a scientist. He's got the chops. But what makes him an effective communicator is not his grasp of the facts, not his authority or gravitas. He has lousy technique as a speaker. What make him effective is his enthusiasm about what he's talking about. You can feel the little kid in him who is excited about the world, laying in his back yard at night, looking up at the stars. Put Krause, or Dawkins in front of a crowd of YECs, and as good and knowledgeable and effective as they are, they would lose that audience.

You need to address the root of the problem, not all the little branches and supporting details. You want details? Go visit my website at xyz.com. BNTSG needs to make Science a fun and acceptable alternative, not simply "lies from the pit of hell".

What are YECs afraid of? They are afraid of losing their souls, or losing their faith, or losing their Bible. If BNTSG can make Science less scary and less threatening, he has a chance.

If BNTSG can ignore Mr. Ham, and keep the focus off the specifics, then BNTSG has a chance. Don't bore the audience. If Mr. Ham keeps moving the goal posts, then BNTSG has to move them faster. In fact, he shouldn't even play the game. If Mr. Ham wants to move the goal posts, then BNTSG should play baseball. If Mr. Ham wants to move the outfield wall, then BNTSG should play basketball.

This is not a "scientific" debate, not a "debate" at all in the way you all are thinking of it. It's not a debate where "facts" and "logic" are going to win the day. This is a "political" debate. This is a "theological" debate. This is a gladiatorial "entertainment". And the side of Science can win there too. If he can keep his focus where he wants to be, then BNTSG has a chance.

Think of Johnnie Cochran. If he had played by the rules of the prosecution, he would have lost the Simpson case. He didn't play their game. He had a simple message, and he kept hammering at it. BNTSG has to keep it simple, keep it honest, keep it exciting, and keep hammering at it, whatever "it" is. Whatever message he wants to get across. And screw Mr. Ham. Let him flap his jaws in the breeze.

Mr. Bill Nye isn't going to convert a single adult YEC. Mr. Bill Nye is going to lose. But if he can connect with their kids (or with the kid inside of some of them), then BNTSG has a chance.

At least I hope so.

Bill Nye should point out that the Bible is only evidence of micro-Christianity: that stuff about loving your neighbour, feeding the poor, rendering unto Caesar, etc etc.

Macro-Christianity - including doctrines like imposing it on kids in classrooms, lying about science, and state-sponsored authoritarian ignorance - is just a theerie.

No-one really believes a Ham-packed audience is actually going to listen to a word Nye says, do they? It's just more Ham-handed theatre: "Look, we caught an ogre!"

Bill Nye should point out that the Bible is only evidence of micro-Christianity: that stuff about loving your neighbour, feeding the poor, rendering unto Caesar, etc etc. Macro-Christianity - including doctrines like imposing it on kids in classrooms, lying about science, and state-sponsored authoritarian ignorance - is just a theerie.

DS said:

rob said: Is this a useful and understandable example of evidence for an old Earth? 1) Today, with GPS measurements in the US and Europe the widening of the Atlantic Ocean Basin has been measured at ~1 inch per year. 2) The Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 inches wide. 3) We know the widening has been slow and continuous from the slope of the mid-Atlantic ridge. Q.E.D. Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 year old. There is further evidence that the Earth is much older than the Atlantic Ocean Basin. Many people have GPS navigators in their cars and can relate to GPS as a method to determine position and speed.

No way man. It went about one hundred miles an hour for a while, then it slowed way down, just because. Just like the speed of light changed, don't ya know. Were you there? Besides, all that magnetic pole reversal stuff is way too sciencey for anyone to actually believe it.

Tenncrain said: It was not until 2010 or so that I finally came across the first half-baked explanations by anti-evolutionists that chromosome #2 did not support humans and chimps being related. Same thing with the broken GULO gene. It's only relatively recently that anti-evolution sites like Evolution News and Views have addressed the GULO pseudogene. But it was no big surprise that two articles that Evolution News and Views posted last year on this issue had the viewer comments section disabled. Another example is transposons [SINE insertions, LINE insertions]. I posted last summer in the Bathroom Wall about how ICR, AIG, and even the more "science" oriented Creation Research Society have virtually no mention to literally no mention of SINE insertions.

John Harshman said: Your point here is fine up to the mention of Ussher. Where do you get the claim that he considered the 6 days of creation to be a thousand years? Ussher put creation at 4004 BC, so those six days must have been, to him, literal days. What you perhaps mean to say is that he thought each of those literal days was reflected in a millennium of human history, which would then encompass 6000 years in toto. But that has nothing to do with the age of the earth's creation, only with the date of its destruction (about 20 years ago).

What you perhaps should say is that a young earth was a majority view among educated Christians until geology started causing problems for it around the early 18th Century, at which point day-age interpretations began to increase in popularity.

A Masked Panda said: David's story is also similar to mine. I ended up in Bible College getting two degrees. There was no science taught, but being surrounded by other YECs reinforced my belief in a 6,000 yr old earth. I gave a couple of impromptu talks in small groups. I even started arguing online with evolutionists once the internet became available.

A few years later I went back to school for a BSc (biology). I found out much of what I thought I knew about evolution was just factually wrong. Other material was based on a twisted version. I started tracking down various YEC claims, and found they were based on misquotes, misunderstandings. It took about 10 years before I was able to work my way through all the changes and implications. My last step was admitting that humans did evolve, just like everything else. (actually, I think for the next five years or so, I was still slightly clinging to the hope that creationism would be found correct). As David said it isn't just one belief that can be done away with, it is a whole system of reinforcing beliefs. If I hadn't gone back to school, I may have worked my way out in a different way (philosophically, for example, dissonance between claims and reality), but it may have taken me a lot longer. For me, the big items were in seeing how I'd been misled. At the time, I didn't have the evidence to know much about evolution. But I could see how the difference between what YEC claimed and what the scientists/papers actually said was different. That was a shock because my default assumption was that YEC people wouldn't lie because lying was of the devil. As a Christian, if you uttered a lie then that lie would be in your face every time you tried to talk to God. You'd get that nagging voice telling you to make things right first before coming to your Creator.

Joe Felsenstein said: It is valuable to hear the perspectives of former YECs here. But I think holding Bill Nye to the standard that he will fail if he does not persuade a YEC audience is asking too much. We have to keep in mind that there are many who will listen to the debate who are either undecided, or who accept the findings of evolutionary biology but need to learn how to persuade others. The debate could be valuable if it reaches these people and persuades them or enlightens them.

rob said: Is this a useful and understandable example of evidence for an old Earth? 1) Today, with GPS measurements in the US and Europe the widening of the Atlantic Ocean Basin has been measured at ~1 inch per year. 2) The Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 inches wide. 3) We know the widening has been slow and continuous from the slope of the mid-Atlantic ridge. Q.E.D. Atlantic Ocean Basin is >=150,000,000 year old. There is further evidence that the Earth is much older than the Atlantic Ocean Basin. Many people have GPS navigators in their cars and can relate to GPS as a method to determine position and speed.

david.starling.macmillan said: My point was that he [Ussher] interpreted Genesis 1 as an allegory; whether this replaced or added to a chronological-narrative view isn’t so much the point.

rob said: However, I am sure you are right DS and this would be gish-galloped. I am looking for additional examples showing an old Earth that are easy to communicate.

John Harshman said: I don't really think it weakens your point to admit that YEC was indeed the favored, and nearly unquestioned, view up until the mid-18th Century. The important point is that it was abandoned by liberal Christians and most educated conservative Christians up until the mid-20th Century. The creationist fake history lies in failing to notice that abandonment and in considering themselves the heirs of an unbroken tradition. And, to a much lesser extent, in failing to consider the rare, early dissents. Don't make more of it than that.

david.starling.macmillan said: The distinction I'm trying to make is between YEC as a conclusion that's at least partly based on evidence and YEC as an presuppositional framework demanded by a dogmatic adherence to the chronological-historical interpretation of Genesis 1-11. The former certainly existed before modern creationism; the latter didn't...not so much, anyway.

david.starling.macmillan said: "Plus, keep in mind that for the Flood to have happened, almost the entire Atlantic basin would have had to form in less than a year. The Atlantic basin floor has a surface area of over 100 million square km and is at least 5 km thick everywhere; that's over 5e14 tonnes of rock that had to solidify from magma. The mantle is over 500 degrees Celsius; the heat of solidifying that much mantle in under a year would have vaporized the entire ocean."

John Harshman said: Modern creationism is unusual only in that it flies in the face of much more data than was available in earlier centuries, and therefore its devotion to dogma must be even more steadfast.

Mike Elzinga said: A high school level calculation shows that if all the Flood waters came from the “canopy’, the rate of energy deposition onto the Earth’s surface would amount to about 40 kilotons of TNT going off every second for every square meter of the Earth’s surface (1.6 x 10⁸ watts per square meter). (The potential energy change per kilogram of mass falling from the “canopy” onto the Earth is 6.26 x 10⁷ J/kg.) As to any other scenario that a YEC can come up with; every one of them, including the “fountains of the deep” model and the “scooping out of the ocean basins to form the land” model, requires more energy to break up and move rock around and produce steam than the “canopy model.”

david.starling.macmillan said:

Tenncrain said: It was not until 2010 or so that I finally came across the first half-baked explanations by anti-evolutionists that chromosome #2 did not support humans and chimps being related.

The thing about chromosome 2 is that it's obscuring the underlying point: humans and chimps had the exact same set of chromosomes to begin with. If you're credulous enough to believe that, then a fusion event in the human population isn't terribly groundbreaking.

AltairIV said:

eric said: I think what I'm hoping for is for Nye to use it as an opportunity to educate people about evolution.

That's not what I hope for. He won't be changing many minds if he just argues the science. As the current conversation has demonstrated, there's that huge underlying foundation of belief and community that needs to be whittled away before any true scientific knowledge has a chance of sinking in. My opinion is that Nye would get the most traction by simply focusing on exposing the basic dishonesty of Ham and his cohort. Not only does it have the best chance of weakening the creationist armor, but it's also the most likely to convince the fence sitters which side is really worth backing.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Tenncrain said: Same thing with the broken GULO gene. It's only relatively recently that anti-evolution sites like Evolution News and Views have addressed the GULO pseudogene. But it was no big surprise that two articles that Evolution News and Views posted last year on this issue had the viewer comments section disabled.

The current explanation of shared pseudogenes, shared transposons, and shared endogenous retroviruses is that God must have designed certain genes to "break" in the exact same place. I.e., there are "hotspots" in the gene where mutations aren't random at all. Apparently God would have a reason to design the primate copy of the GULO gene with weaknesses such that it would end up "breaking" with 33 identical substitution errors in the same 33 places. Of course, the guinea pig GULO gene broke in different places, because...they don't know why. Why would God do this? They don't know, but they MIGHT find a reason someday, so it's good enough for them. If they actually wanted to test this hypothesis, they could do so quite easily by comparing pseudogenes in populations without a recent common ancestor; proving the existence of mutation hotspots would be a huge revolution in biology. But they don't.

david.starling.macmillan said: No modern creationists (at least, not the AiG-style somewhat-educated sort) subscribe to the canopy theory anymore; they're pretty much all in the "rapid tectonic shift" camp. While I've shown the impossibility of that here, I haven't seen any rigorous analysis of the total energy required to pull it off. Any idea where I might find it?

If Nye tries to convince YEC’s that evolution is correct, he is going to get killed.

The esteemed Harold wrote:

"Ham has oddly, perhaps accidentally, given Nye a chance to do something a competent cult leader would be hesitant to allow. To discuss reality in front of the followers. If Nye stirs some thought in even one of them, that’s a victory for Nye."

Yes, true enough, if only it was someone else (anybody else!) than the stumbling, bumbling, TV personality Nye.

For example, Hitchens took apart Dembski at Prestonwood Christian Academy in 2011. Dembski was stumbling and bumbling, well, typical Dembski. Dembski simply ignored the debate topic and ineffectively disputed one of Hitchens' books. Christopher, on the other hand, was masterful at dissecting the topic with facts and logic. Hitchens also pitched his rhetoric to the age of the audience - elementary and middle school students. In the end Hitchens told the audience not to take his word or that of any other authority figure, but to go out and read, learn and think for themselves.

It was such a powerful and devastating conclusion that the headmaster rushed out at the end and offered a prayer that could only be described as an exorcism of the Demon Hitchens!

I'd rather pit Pee Wee Herman against Hambo than Nye.,

Mike Elzinga said: However one does it, it has to be broken up and/or melted and then relocated. Where does that kind of energy come from; and where did the water come from if it wasn’t in contact with the high temperatures of the Earth’s mantel? The amount of energy going into just the water alone approaches the “canopy model;” but that is tiny compared to what it takes to move all the rock around.

Scott F said: Oh. What's that you say? No labs?

I've said this before, and there are others saying the same: the real oddity about the main forms of Biblical literalism is not that literalists insist on whatever miracles are required to make the stories in Genesis work. No, it's that they don't do that.

No, I'm serious. This is about God, isn't it? You know, the One who wrote the laws that you "rationalists" are applying here - and he doesn't have to obey those laws. If he wanted to create the waters of the flood from nothing, to cause them to appear from nowhere, and to return to nothingness, why not? He created the Universe from nothing, didn't he? Why would a few gigatonnes of water defeat him?

And if he wanted merely to drown the Earth, not to flash-boil everything on it, what's the problem? He created the laws of physics. He can abrogate them at will, can't he? Why do you think your figures constrain Almighty God?

There's actually a purely surface logical consistency about this. It's pure omphalos, of course, and the implications of such an approach are a theological can of worms, but the "literalists" could go this way, and if they did, it would solve many of their problems.

But they don't go this way. Instead, they try to find ways that the known physical laws could permit a world-wide flood. They can't do that, because the laws don't permit it. But what interests me is that they try.

Why? Hypothesis: they actually understand and accept the explanatory power of science, and the enormous attraction of explanation itself. They know that "This caused that, in this precise way, according to this defined principle, which arises necessarily from this cause..." is enormously more satisfying, far more attractive, than "God did it". They fear that power, and they try to emulate it - in fact, to co-opt it.

They have one advantage in this transaction: ignorance. As Mike says, a competent high school senior who's taken physics should be able to perform the calculations that demonstrate that the flood is impossible given the laws of physics that work for everything else; that the Earth would be autoclaved by anything like this level of energy release. But the literalists' audience does not consist of people who are competent even to this level. And the theory of evolution is even more susceptible to appeals to ignorance using misrepresentation.

Which is why they want that ignorance preserved and misrepresentation allowed.

Exactly. If the Creationists would just stick with *poof*, everything would be okay. If it's miracles all the way down, then, why not? Who can argue with miracles?

It seems though, that when God created the Universe, he kind of blew his wad. After that, he was confined to mere parlor tricks: a bit of water into wine here, knocking down a few town walls there, a few well placed plagues, raise a couple of dead here and there, and the best trick of all, appearing on random pieces of decaying food.

But no. For some reason, God has to be constrained by the laws of physics that God created, and the creationist will bend those laws until they scream, but he won't allow God to break them.

Really, really strange.

It's like, they seem to understand at some level that Science explains how the world works, that Science is "true". Yet, they also believe that the Bible is "true". So they "know" that "true" Science must agree and conform to the "true" Bible. And (here is the critical part), since they don't really understand Science, and since Scientists are heathen, lying Atheists anyway, then the Creationist can make Science say whatever they want it to say. Because it's "true", don't you know.

As Dave says, Creationists must continue to make Science as mysterious and scary and hard to understand as possible, because they need Science to say whatever the Bible happens to be telling them is true "today", which may be different tomorrow.

On the other hand, there are those Creationists who really don't give a shit about Science, like US Congressman Paul Broun, who simply say that Science is all "lies straight from the pit of hell".

david.starling.macmillan said: Impact craters with visible surface impact patterns are good. The Vredefort impact structure couldn't have formed before or during the flood, or erosion would have erased the clear impact rings. Yet it couldn't have formed since the flood, or South Africa would still be a smoking pile of molten slag.

The purity of the chalk itself also points to rapid accumulation. One cannot imagine a scenario where deposits over millions of years could maintain such purity without accumulating some contaminating sediments from other events. … The White Cliffs of Dover confirm the biblical account of a global Flood just about 4,000 years ago. The evidence is apparent when viewed through a biblical perspective.

Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

fnxtr said: No-one really believes a Ham-packed audience is actually going to listen to a word Nye says, do they? It's just more Ham-handed theatre: "Look, we caught an ogre!"

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

The arguments I've always wanted to use on a YEC are based on tree rings.

The general idea being that kids generally absorb the "one tree ring per year" idea, and it's something that can actually be tested in a human lifetime.

The next step is the bristlecone pines in the Sierra Nevada. Some of them are old enough (count the rings!) to have been alive before a 6K-year-old Earth YEC would place the Flood. So it's up to the YEC to figure out how those trees survived under water.

The final step is dendrochronology. You can go from one peice of wood to another matching the ring patterns and get back about 14,000 years. Oops...

Note that none of this relies on any science more complicated than simple counting. No radiometric dating. No geological processes. Just simply counting tree rings.

Chiral asymmetry in Murchison meteorite amino acids

A number of processes favor left-handed amino acids.

Plus, almost no serious researcher thinks that real proteins were necessary for simple life.

And it shows a lack of awareness of evolutionary theory even to suggest that it ever could or should account for abiogenesis. Of course, there is way more evidence for abiogenesis than the poof of mythology--that is to say, some. But evolution per se has no predictions prior to some form of replication, save that at least some of the building blocks of current life should be produced by abiotic processes (evolution and abiogenesis are not actually disconnected causally, of course).

We don't know how life could have arisen, however there are a good many leads, decent ideas for possible abiogenesis. None for creation.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Chiral asymmetry in Murchison meteorite amino acids A number of processes favor left-handed amino acids. Plus, almost no serious researcher thinks that real proteins were necessary for simple life. And it shows a lack of awareness of evolutionary theory even to suggest that it ever could or should account for abiogenesis. Of course, there is way more evidence for abiogenesis than the poof of mythology--that is to say, some. But evolution per se has no predictions prior to some form of replication, save that at least some of the building blocks of current life should be produced by abiotic processes (evolution and abiogenesis are not actually disconnected causally, of course). We don't know how life could have arisen, however there are a good many leads, decent ideas for possible abiogenesis. None for creation. Glen Davidson

W. H. Heydt said: The arguments I've always wanted to use on a YEC are based on tree rings. The general idea being that kids generally absorb the "one tree ring per year" idea, and it's something that can actually be tested in a human lifetime. The next step is the bristlecone pines in the Sierra Nevada. Some of them are old enough (count the rings!) to have been alive before a 6K-year-old Earth YEC would place the Flood. So it's up to the YEC to figure out how those trees survived under water. The final step is dendrochronology. You can go from one peice of wood to another matching the ring patterns and get back about 14,000 years. Oops... Note that none of this relies on any science more complicated than simple counting. No radiometric dating. No geological processes. Just simply counting tree rings.

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

Dave Luckett said: I've said this before, and there are others saying the same: the real oddity about the main forms of Biblical literalism is not that literalists insist on whatever miracles are required to make the stories in Genesis work. No, it's that they don't do that. ... Why? Hypothesis: they actually understand and accept the explanatory power of science, and the enormous attraction of explanation itself. They know that "This caused that, in this precise way, according to this defined principle, which arises necessarily from this cause..." is enormously more satisfying, far more attractive, than "God did it". They fear that power, and they try to emulate it - in fact, to co-opt it.

Dave Luckett said: I've said this before, and there are others saying the same: the real oddity about the main forms of Biblical literalism is not that literalists insist on whatever miracles are required to make the stories in Genesis work. No, it's that they don't do that. No, I'm serious. This is about God, isn't it? You know, the One who wrote the laws that you "rationalists" are applying here - and he doesn't have to obey those laws. If he wanted to create the waters of the flood from nothing, to cause them to appear from nowhere, and to return to nothingness, why not? He created the Universe from nothing, didn't he? Why would a few gigatonnes of water defeat him? And if he wanted merely to drown the Earth, not to flash-boil everything on it, what's the problem? He created the laws of physics. He can abrogate them at will, can't he? Why do you think your figures constrain Almighty God? There's actually a purely surface logical consistency about this. It's pure omphalos, of course, and the implications of such an approach are a theological can of worms, but the "literalists" could go this way, and if they did, it would solve many of their problems. But they don't go this way. Instead, they try to find ways that the known physical laws could permit a world-wide flood. They can't do that, because the laws don't permit it. But what interests me is that they try. Why? Hypothesis: they actually understand and accept the explanatory power of science, and the enormous attraction of explanation itself. They know that "This caused that, in this precise way, according to this defined principle, which arises necessarily from this cause..." is enormously more satisfying, far more attractive, than "God did it". They fear that power, and they try to emulate it - in fact, to co-opt it. They have one advantage in this transaction: ignorance. As Mike says, a competent high school senior who's taken physics should be able to perform the calculations that demonstrate that the flood is impossible given the laws of physics that work for everything else; that the Earth would be autoclaved by anything like this level of energy release. But the literalists' audience does not consist of people who are competent even to this level. And the theory of evolution is even more susceptible to appeals to ignorance using misrepresentation. Which is why they want that ignorance preserved and misrepresentation allowed.

Doc Bill said: The esteemed Harold wrote: "Ham has oddly, perhaps accidentally, given Nye a chance to do something a competent cult leader would be hesitant to allow. To discuss reality in front of the followers. If Nye stirs some thought in even one of them, that’s a victory for Nye." Yes, true enough, if only it was someone else (anybody else!) than the stumbling, bumbling, TV personality Nye. For example, Hitchens took apart Dembski at Prestonwood Christian Academy in 2011. Dembski was stumbling and bumbling, well, typical Dembski. Dembski simply ignored the debate topic and ineffectively disputed one of Hitchens' books. Christopher, on the other hand, was masterful at dissecting the topic with facts and logic. Hitchens also pitched his rhetoric to the age of the audience - elementary and middle school students. In the end Hitchens told the audience not to take his word or that of any other authority figure, but to go out and read, learn and think for themselves. It was such a powerful and devastating conclusion that the headmaster rushed out at the end and offered a prayer that could only be described as an exorcism of the Demon Hitchens! I'd rather pit Pee Wee Herman against Hambo than Nye.,

Tenncrain said: Indeed, the 2005 finding about the fused human chromosome #2 was not so much "groundbreaking" per se. Rather, it successfully resolved what had been a curious anomoly. Since humans only have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps (and the other apes) have 24, the missing human chromosome could not have just vanished without resulting in premature death and thus the mutation would not have been passed on. This had at least some long-term potential to falsify evolution. As Ken Miller touched on during the Kitzmiller trial, evolution made a risky prediction about chromosome #2, and the 2005 discovery of the fusion showed that evolution passed this test with flying colors.

alicejohn said: Both Nye and Ham are used to preaching to children. Because of that, Nye as a decent chance of looking good. However, he needs to make Ham defend YEC. In my opinion, YEC is most vulnerable because of its time scale. Both geology and astronomy are topics easily understood by children. If it takes a million years for light to travel from a distant star, how can the universe be 6000 years old? If light has changed speed, what proof do YEC “scientists” have that it has? If God gave the light the appearance of age, why is God deceiving us?

Tenncrain said: I have pointed out to anti-evolutionists that the Beta Globin pseudogene in humans, chimps, bonobos and gorillas have exact matching defects. They will still sometimes reply that that is the way the "designer" wanted it. But when I further point out that one of those defects includes three consecutive stop switches in the same spot, I get either silence or a reply that tries to change the subject or move the goalposts. Imagine while driving and you see three stop signs close to each other planted single file; it's likely the county engineer that had those three signs put up might have his or her job at risk!

Mike Elzinga said:

The “canopy theory” is also easy to calculate; and it sets the lower limit on the amount of energy required for such a Flood event. Melting and moving rock around within the time frame of the purported flood requires far more energy and a far higher rate of energy deposition from somewhere.

What about the production of entirely new seafloor from catastrophically rapid seafloor spreading? That's AiG's current model: that the rapid seafloor spreading boiled seawater at the ridge, rowing up tonnes of liquid water into the atmosphere while also producing successive tsunamis which blanketed the continental plates in seafloor sediment. I mean, I can certainly intuit how that would need an awfully big heatsink, but I'm unsure how to determine whether it would be more than the canopy approach.

Scott F said:The obvious answer to all those pesky "math" questions is obvious: *poof*. And that's the "scientific" form of *poof*. You know. The *poof* that good Christian scientists demonstrate in the DI labs every day. Oh. What's that you say? No labs? Well, then it's the other kind of *poof*. The Great Mysteries of God™ kind of *poof*.

Dave Luckett said: I've said this before, and there are others saying the same: the real oddity about the main forms of Biblical literalism is not that literalists insist on whatever miracles are required to make the stories in Genesis work. No, it's that they don't do that. There's actually a purely surface logical consistency about this. It's pure omphalos, of course, and the implications of such an approach are a theological can of worms, but the "literalists" could go this way, and if they did, it would solve many of their problems. But they don't go this way. Instead, they try to find ways that the known physical laws could permit a world-wide flood. They can't do that, because the laws don't permit it. But what interests me is that they try. Why? Hypothesis: they actually understand and accept the explanatory power of science, and the enormous attraction of explanation itself. They know that "This caused that, in this precise way, according to this defined principle, which arises necessarily from this cause..." is enormously more satisfying, far more attractive, than "God did it". They fear that power, and they try to emulate it - in fact, to co-opt it.

Absolutely right. That's why I never just "poofed" the numbers away, and why YECs will always do anything they can to explain something naturalistically. Remember, the entire original purpose of stuff like YEC was to establish an outside source of confidence in the Bible. We saw the predictive power of science and wished we had a way to obtain that level of confidence in the Bible, so we tied the Bible to the coattails of antievolutionism in the hopes it would give us the certainty that faith alone could not. "Poof" doesn't leave evidence. It doesn't help us out one way or another. If we can come up with a mostly-naturalistic model that follows the magic poof and makes testable predictions, then we get to claim our religious ideas have scientific merit.

Scott F said: Heck, just look at the Deccan Traps. If they had formed during the year of the flood, all of India would still be a smoking pile of slag. Same with Hawaii, or Yellowstone, or the Sierra Nevada.

The Deccan Traps are sitting on top of "flood" strata, right? How long would it take a mile-thick mass of lava to solidify?

Dinosaur footprints buried in the middle of miles-thick layers of rock are another. No fancy "hydrological sorting" is possible with those.

They'll allege that the dinosaurs were clearly fleeing the tsunamis caused by the rapid tectonic shift, and the next wave buried and preserved their tracks. Which is ridiculous, of course, but plausible enough for a lay audience to accept it. That's what makes this so hard: because all the individual components of YEC buttress each other, it's never enough to how that something is improbable; it has to be shown completely implausible.

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

I'm probably succumbing to a personality defect here, but I can't help it. What was the purpose of that last sentence? Why couldn't you just ask the question without bringing up "faith" at all? I don't understand. I'm a physics guy, not a biochem guy, but one thing to keep in mind about chirality is that a very slight imbalance can have "runaway" effects. Even very basic thermodynamic processes can mimic "natural selection" on a microscopic scale by collecting molecules of similar chirality and discarding the ones that don't fit. This is easily observable and repeatable.

W. H. Heydt said: The arguments I've always wanted to use on a YEC are based on tree rings. The general idea being that kids generally absorb the "one tree ring per year" idea, and it's something that can actually be tested in a human lifetime. The next step is the bristlecone pines in the Sierra Nevada. Some of them are old enough (count the rings!) to have been alive before a 6K-year-old Earth YEC would place the Flood. So it's up to the YEC to figure out how those trees survived under water. The final step is dendrochronology. You can go from one peice of wood to another matching the ring patterns and get back about 14,000 years. Oops... Note that none of this relies on any science more complicated than simple counting. No radiometric dating. No geological processes. Just simply counting tree rings.

Cite this explanation to a rank-and-file creationist (as Rolf did), and they'll immediately argue that you can't know the number of tree rings that can form in a single year. It could happen more than once a year, couldn't it? You can't prove it won't! And so forth. No matter how ridiculous it is to think that you could have 2 or 3 or 5 or 8 rings in a single year, they'll still find it plausible enough to warrant rejection of your example. Cite this to a more educated YEC, and they'll admit it's problematic and warrants additional research. The speculation given by Woodmorappe here is that local events could cause fallacious cross-matching at the ends of contemporaneous trees, artificially inflating the timeline, but it's obviously he recognizes just how speculative this is.

harold said: They are authoritarians. We aren't dealing with people who want to persuade rational adults, we're dealing with people who ultimately want to force everyone else to live by the harsh social and political rules they endorse, using a religious justification. They recognize the scientific method as something that others see as giving answers that are hard to refute. They don't get why. They see everything as advocacy of some agenda. But they recognize claims of scientific validity as a technique of advocacy, and mimic the technique.

A distinction should be made between the leaders and the followers. For me, creationism was the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance. And I really hated the way conservatism forced me to be a dick and a bigot to everyone, but it was just the way things were. The followers are probably more interested in the actual science, all things considered.

First advice I would give Nye is to expect heavy negative criticism of his performance. Not just from creationists.
I for one, expect his reputation to suffer...a lot. I base that on his stumbling over softball questions during
his interviews about this 'debate'.

Advice I would give him during his time on stage...identify the audience. Ask them questions and have them respond
by either standing or raising their hands. Questions like who thinks the universe is only thousands of years old. Working
scientists stand up. Those that think the universe is billions of years old, raise your hand. Those that have visited
here before tonight, raise your hand.

I would tell Nye to make it clear as can be that he is not an expert in any of the sciences. Strictly an amateur. He should
also make it clear he is not an expert in theology. I have to wonder though if his ego would allow him to do that.

Nye's opening statement should hammer on how creationists attempt to find evidence of instant creation. He should compare their
method to something like a lead detective investigating a woman's murder who has the belief that all women victims were murdered
by their husbands or boyfriends. Regardless of the evidence that contradicts his belief, he throws out the finger print, dna,
alibi and all other evidence that supports the innocence of the one he believes committed the murder and therefore never
solves the case. But continues to believe all murdered women were the victims of their husbands or boyfriends.

I was going to suggest using ice cores and the core from lakes such as Lake Suigetsu as indisputable evidence for a much
older earth than creationists claim. Then I saw the article on ice cores at ICR and how easily they dismissed them.
So I think the best argument that an amateur such as Nye can give is the one I mentioned above.

david.starling.macmillan said:

harold said: They are authoritarians. We aren't dealing with people who want to persuade rational adults, we're dealing with people who ultimately want to force everyone else to live by the harsh social and political rules they endorse, using a religious justification. They recognize the scientific method as something that others see as giving answers that are hard to refute. They don't get why. They see everything as advocacy of some agenda. But they recognize claims of scientific validity as a technique of advocacy, and mimic the technique.

A distinction should be made between the leaders and the followers.

For me, creationism was the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance. And I really hated the way conservatism forced me to be a dick and a bigot to everyone, but it was just the way things were.

The followers are probably more interested in the actual science, all things considered.

Evolution is a hypothesized theory, an unexplainable, farfetched idea. The supposed outcome of it - man – was never observed being formed. To expect a thinking person to accept it as factual science is nonsensical. It is a false religion, maneuvered into our captive-audience children in the governmental public schools, against most of our, wishes. Religion is the act of having faith in something. Our children are being duped into having faith in unscientific evolution, under the guise of proven science. I want it removed from the schools. I am appalled, stunned and cannot understand how supposedly thinking people have even bitten on this bait. Some don't realize this is simply a handy tool used to subject our children to the atheistic idea of no God. Intelligent design does not have to be taught in the schools, but evolution should not be taught because it is not a proven fact. A growing number of science professors and teachers, having taught this concept to children, tearfully admit they were duped and anguish over the fact they led so many astray. They are trying desperately to correct the error they taught, to the extent of writing books about it. Bravo for their courage and humility. Children have quite simply been indoctrinated/brainwashed about a false theory/idea from youth onward. Put yourself in the child's place. What vulnerable child could possibly refute this theory while under the dominating teacher's influence? If that child is taught differently at home, the confusion and stress it causes the child is excruciating for him/her to bear, and undermines the rights of the parents to teach their child as they wish. Children lose heart when they grow up thinking they are nothing but evolved animals. Actually, they are intricately woven created human beings. The theory that the evolving man gets better and smarter at each level is an ideal climate for the idea of racism to blossom- one level better than the other. However, the creation of human beings, of man/woman, by God allows no racism. All are created equal- no mention of race or color is made since all are brother and sisters, descended from the original human beings (Acts17:26- NKJV). We need our schools to return to using Classroom time for teaching basics so our children will be employable after finishing high school. Research now shows that sex and drug education encourages promiscuous behavior rather than discourages it, as is certainly evidenced by the downturn of our national teen culture. Including these courses in the public schools, has led us to be the sickest nation of teens/young adults in the world. Promiscuity, minds dominated by sex (not love), young teen single parenthood, abortions, fatherless children, malnourishment, addictions, STDs resulting in sterility, depression, suicide, murders in school, homosexuality, etc., are exhibited damaging effects realized in their pre-adult lives and carried into their adult lives. Before the above nonsense courses were force-fed daily to our captive children, and God and prayer forced out, our nation led the world in teen academics and teen morality, and teens were healthy. Consequently, that led to a vibrantly blessed nation. Observe what we have allowed to shamefully happen to a great percentage of those teens and the sick status of our nation. There is no excuse for us. Get the hurtful courses out and get God back in. We've discouraged and deprived a highly significant percentage of three generations of children who have ended up damaged by evolution/health courses being force fed to them. It doesn't take a lot of brains to connect the dots for a thinking people. The money spent on just these two courses could be used to add productive, decent, courses to educate and turn our children's minds optimistically on their future. And guess what? Their behavior would improve too. Let's fight to remove these classes from the schools now and give back to children the "sweet mystery of life" to discover for themselves at the proper adult times of their lives, and help equip our children with a healthy and high academic future. Let's turn it around.

Charley Horse said: First advice I would give Nye is to expect heavy negative criticism of his performance. Not just from creationists. I for one, expect his reputation to suffer...a lot. I base that on his stumbling over softball questions during his interviews about this 'debate'. Advice I would give him during his time on stage...identify the audience. Ask them questions and have them respond by either standing or raising their hands. Questions like who thinks the universe is only thousands of years old. Working scientists stand up. Those that think the universe is billions of years old, raise your hand. Those that have visited here before tonight, raise your hand.

I would tell Nye to make it clear as can be that he is not an expert in any of the sciences. Strictly an amateur. He should also make it clear he is not an expert in theology. I have to wonder though if his ego would allow him to do that.

Nye's opening statement should hammer on how creationists attempt to find evidence of instant creation. He should compare their method to something like a lead detective investigating a woman's murder who has the belief that all women victims were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. Regardless of the evidence that contradicts his belief, he throws out the finger print, dna, alibi and all other evidence that supports the innocence of the one he believes committed the murder and therefore never solves the case. But continues to believe all murdered women were the victims of their husbands or boyfriends.

I was going to suggest using ice cores and the core from lakes such as Lake Suigetsu as indisputable evidence for a much older earth than creationists claim. Then I saw the article on ice cores at ICR and how easily they dismissed them. So I think the best argument that an amateur such as Nye can give is the one I mentioned above.

Scott F said: I would agree. That sounds like good advice. Everyone seems to like and intuitively understand CSI and detective stories. Framing Science as a Detective Story sounds like a winning strategy. It's about being a gumshoe, which everyone can relate to. The Scientific Method isn't about the specific details. It isn't wedded to specific outcomes. If he can show that Creationism is required to reach a predetermined conclusion (the Bible, or a specific interpretation of the Bible), and that Science is all about unbiased detective work, he might have a chance.

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

A distinction should be made between the leaders and the followers. For me, creationism was the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance. And I really hated the way conservatism forced me to be a dick and a bigot to everyone, but it was just the way things were. The followers are probably more interested in the actual science, all things considered.

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

Apologies for the "then/than" typo.

"If Nye tries to convince YEC’s that evolution is correct, he is going to get killed. Nye will spend 10 minutes on the most accurate, lucid description of an evolutionary point and Ham will simply smirk, raise his hands, and proclaim “Where you there!!!” to a standing ovation from the audience. Game over. Nye needs to stay away from anything but the most basic evolutionary concepts (ex, so-called micro-evolution extrapolated to macro-evolution when large time lines are introduced).
Both Nye and Ham are used to preaching to children. Because of that, Nye as a decent chance of looking good. However, he needs to make Ham defend YEC. In my opinion, YEC is most vulnerable because of its time scale. Both geology and astronomy are topics easily understood by children. If it takes a million years for light to travel from a distant star, how can the universe be 6000 years old? If light has changed speed, what proof do YEC “scientists” have that it has? If God gave the light the appearance of age, why is God deceiving us? I doubt if Ham can defend YEC beyond a child’s level. Nye’s only risk with this strategy is to be careful not to attack religion in general.
Nye has little chance of convincing an anti-evolutionist that evolution is correct. He has a good chance of convincing some people YEC is wrong."

I very much agree. The right tactics for the occasion.

"they’re okay with creation only being instantaneous from Earth’s reference frame" (David MacMillan - and it's useful to have the perspective of an ex-YEC, which Bill Nye of course isn't).

But that does not sound like EITHER a viable origins 'model' for a modern scientific era OR (more seriously for the YEC audience) a biblical claim. It's some kind of desperate twisting of Einsteinian relativity perhaps.

So I think Nye would have a suitable retort he could make.

"I was going to suggest using ice cores and the core from lakes such as Lake Suigetsu as indisputable evidence for a much older earth than creationists claim. Then I saw the article on ice cores at ICR and how easily they dismissed them. So I think the best argument that an amateur such as Nye can give is the one I mentioned above."

Well, CMI had some 'problems' with Lake Suigetsu varves (as described in the first link below):
[in fact 'Panda's Thumb' is REJECTING the link, so please click on the linked PCA article at footnote 1 of the CMI article linked to below]
http://creation.com/refuting-campbell-young-pca-modern-reformation
This CMI article is a particularly FINE piece of pompous bigotry, evasiveness, and science denial from John K Reed.
For instance:
"The first example is the “varved” (finely layered) sediments of Lake Suigetsu in Japan. Apparently, the varves present a “record” of 100,000 years, reinforced by C14 dating and dendrochronology. And of course, once the lake sediments have blown away the creationist position, the authors can then point to the rock record beneath the lake as “proving” millions of years.
Like any other interpretation, this one is a combination of data and assumptions. There is no attempt to consider a serious Flood alternative; it is simply a matter of PhD condescension towards the ignorant peasants who give the elite accommodationists a bad name in the eyes of the world. If the sediments are annual varves … if C14 dating is accurate … if dendrochronology is accurate … etc. If, if, if. Unfortunately, none of these can be demonstrated, as shown by the links above. Another good resource is Rock Solid Answers, where Mike Oard has a good chapter on varves.
Like the Lake Suigetsu argument, the next case also makes the attempt to demonstrate how multiple lines of evidence all lead to the same conclusion. But while the data might be independent, the worldview in the mind of the researchers is not, and worldviews always shape perceptions of reality. This time, the authors take us to the other side of the world, to the Atlantic Ocean’s mid-ocean ridge. We are told that after geology proved a steady spreading rate over 180,000,000 years, that satellite measurements have triumphantly confirmed that rate.
Once again, there are too many weak links. How do we know that the seafloor has been spreading at the same rate for 180 million years? A few scattered dates of oceanic rocks? One would think at a minimum that a dense grid of dates would be required to prove such a claim. But even the sparse dates might be more convincing if they were actually dates of the oceanic basement. Or if we could trust radiometric dating, despite its assumptions and anomalies. Finally, a few years of satellite measurements alone cannot possibly prove 180 million years of constant spreading. We need to know too that a rigid uniformitarianism has held over time. Ironically, it was Young who wrote:
"We also challenge young-Earth creationists to desist from labeling modern geology as uniformitarian when they know full well that modern geologists repudiate any a priori commitment to slow, gradual process rates in the geologic past to the exclusion of all catastrophic events"."

No systematic rebuttal just endless nitpicking. How does a young Earth (6,000 years only) 'model' (or Noah's Flood 'model') possibly explain more than 100,000 varves at the botton of Lake Suigetsu? And - because he has no option - Reed blatantly ignores the significance of the following information in the article (which reports OBSERVATIONS, something Ken Ham claims to ACCEPT):
"If forced to compress this history into a few thousand years, more than a dozen alternating layers had to form every year up until the present where suddenly only one pair now forms annually. No mechanism is known that could accomplish this, but fortunately, we don't have to simply rely on untestable assumptions about the past. We can test the "multiple varves per year" hypothesis by comparing the 14C (carbon-14) content of each varve with that of tree rings collected from a similar latitude. This method works because trees and diatoms both incorporate carbon into their tissues or shells that comes from the atmosphere";
"A varve deposited say 2,000 years ago should have a similar residual 14C content as a 2,000 year old tree ring. The beauty of this comparison is that it will be true even if decay rates somehow turn out to be variable or if the 14C content of the ancient atmosphere is unknown. In other words, the test is independent of assumptions about decay rates and historical atmospheric processes. At Lake Suigetsu, hundreds of samples from among the upper 45,000 varves (as far back as 14C can be reliably detected) have been analyzed for 14C content and compared with tree rings. The results unambiguously confirm that each varve indeed represents one year of sediment deposition".

The viability of YEC 'creation' position will be HIGHLY VULNERABLE if Nye can present cases like this of consilience ie MULTIPLE lines of evidence leading to the same conclusion and/or confirming a previous hypothesis when one of the lines of evidence or measurement was still unavailable. Ham will be squirming even if he does not say so.

But what about the Institute for Creation Research, who apparently have also written about Lake Suigetsu? Well in fact, having just googled, I cannot find one.

Sorry - on re-reading I see that Charley was referring to an ICR article that covers ice cores but, apparently, NOT varves (lake bottom sediment layers).

This comment will soon be sent to the Bathroom Wall, and I fully accept that outcome.

But Harold, what the hell is wrong with you, talking disrespectfully to Wandrewfox like that?

He not only asked his question in a fully respectful manner, but he even started off by DISTANCING himself from creationism.

Isn't that what you guys want?

Weloome to Pandasthumb, Wandrewfox. See how they play the game. Heh.

FL

MORE on the Lake Suigetsu varves and so on:
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/varves-chronology-suigetsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/ (written by a Christian blogger; the piece also reports findings from 2012 ie later than the 2010 Modern Reformation article by PCA ie Christian geologists)
If there are 104,000 or so varves at the bottom of this particular lake, that suggests 52,000 years of time (each year producing a summer layer and a winter layer).
And these varves have helped calibrate and validate radiocarbon dates and other radiometric dates.
Dr Reed (who has a PhD) "simply throws out the same doubts about c14 dating and varves and claims that these scientists haven’t been willing to consider alternatives. But what alternatives does Dr. Reed provide? He asserts that links to other articles provide demonstrations that varves and c14 doesn’t work. But even if they didn’t work that isn’t an alternative answer ...". Not an alternative 'model' either.

Meanwhile the CMI evasiveness and dogmatism continued in 2011 after another Christian blogger deservedly criticised the Reed article:
http://creation.com/rocks-to-reincarnation
At least Dr Sarfati sort of acknowledges is unscientific bias. He refers to 'Sola Scriptura' and adds: "Jesus Himself endorsed the Flood as a real event, the Ark as a real ship, and Noah as a real person (Luke 17:26–27), so how can any of His professing followers deny it? No scientific model that overrules these clear teachings is acceptable."

What Reed was rejecting was genuine scientific discoveries and NOT 'worldviews' or purely speculative 'assumptions'. Sarfati, in having to make another reply, merely confirms WHY Reed rejected science and WHY YECs reject so many viable science models - and then have the nerve to insist that what they are left with - biblical teachings eg about an apparently worldwide flood triggered by divine anger and representing divine judgement - is 'another' scientific model.

Q: "Were you there?"

A: "Irrelevant! The evidence is here!"

FL said: But Harold, what the hell is wrong with you, talking disrespectfully to Wandrewfox like that? FL

"Q: “Were you there?”
A: “Irrelevant! The evidence is here!”"

Here, there and everywhere.

The Matt Young story is so sad, yet unfortunately represents millions of young people his age that are abandoning the creation account. I found it interesting that he claimed the creation story has only been around since 1960 when in reality it was written about 3,500 years ago by Moses. Evolution is actually the newcomer on the block--Charles Darwin wrote his thesis on evolution only approximately 150 years ago.

My story is almost the exact opposite. I grew up getting indoctrinated by my parents into the religion evolution. I can still vividly remember my first Biology class in southern California and my teacher Mrs. Knapp openly mocking the one student that had the courage to raise their hand to declare they believed in the Creation account. That began my journey into believing in creation. I figured that if that student had the courage to stand up to the entire class and a razor tongued teacher I had better check the creation account out a little more carefully.

Since that time I have learned that God had specific purpose in making the Universe and all the complexities and order we see abundantly around us. I am so thankful for that student that had the courage to out critically think very person that was being paid to teach him how to do that.

My wife is now a professor at a secular University teaching students how to critically think and how to articulate their thoughts into writing. We have discovered that it is the one skill they lack most. We have observed that the professors have brought the students to a point of understanding with their own ideas, but the students are intimidated in critically thinking past or through what the professors have taught them. In fact many students have abandoned critical thinking and thought articulating all together. The intense ridicule possibly from the professor and from fellow peers and threat of a lower grade is just too much for them.

The skill of critical thinking and the art of articulating those thoughts into writing will need to be learned by the generation now graduating from school if we are to see a resurgence in creativity and a new generation with a clearly defined purpose.

stevaroni said: Commercial transistors were a decade away....

Jim said: The Matt Young story is so sad, yet unfortunately represents millions of young people his age that are abandoning the creation account. I found it interesting that he claimed the creation story has only been around since 1960 when in reality it was written about 3,500 years ago by Moses. Evolution is actually the newcomer on the block--Charles Darwin wrote his thesis on evolution only approximately 150 years ago. My story is almost the exact opposite. I grew up getting indoctrinated by my parents into the religion evolution. I can still vividly remember my first Biology class in southern California and my teacher Mrs. Knapp openly mocking the one student that had the courage to raise their hand to declare they believed in the Creation account. That began my journey into believing in creation. I figured that if that student had the courage to stand up to the entire class and a razor tongued teacher I had better check the creation account out a little more carefully. Since that time I have learned that God had specific purpose in making the Universe and all the complexities and order we see abundantly around us. I am so thankful for that student that had the courage to out critically think very person that was being paid to teach him how to do that. My wife is now a professor at a secular University teaching students how to critically think and how to articulate their thoughts into writing. We have discovered that it is the one skill they lack most. We have observed that the professors have brought the students to a point of understanding with their own ideas, but the students are intimidated in critically thinking past or through what the professors have taught them. In fact many students have abandoned critical thinking and thought articulating all together. The intense ridicule possibly from the professor and from fellow peers and threat of a lower grade is just too much for them. The skill of critical thinking and the art of articulating those thoughts into writing will need to be learned by the generation now graduating from school if we are to see a resurgence in creativity and a new generation with a clearly defined purpose.

Since that time I have learned that God had specific purpose in making the Universe and all the complexities and order we see abundantly around us.

I am so thankful for that student that had the courage to out critically think very person that was being paid to teach him how to do that.

Hi Glenn: Actually what I said was that anyone with the courage to stand up in front of a classroom. particularly at age 15, and a razor tongue teacher deserved my attention as someone I should pay more attention to. If you feel that is fallacious then you, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

No evidence of critical thinking?? Sorry do not agree. Standing your ground, deciphering. an argument, and articulating a response is exactly what was done and is what critical thinking is all about.

Jim said: Standing your ground, deciphering. an argument, and articulating a response is exactly what was done and is what critical thinking is all about.

Jim said: My story is almost the exact opposite. I grew up getting indoctrinated by my parents into the religion evolution.... That began my journey into believing in creation. Since that time I have learned that God had specific purpose in making the Universe and all the complexities and order we see abundantly around us.

For example, this is an extended quote, using the <quote> and </quote> technique.

Hi Dave: Critical thinking is about deciphering an argument that has been presented and articulating a response. It assumed in critical thinking that one already understands their own ideas.

Purposeful design?? A beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, the care animals have for their youth, the remarkable homing instincts of Monarch Butterflies and other creatures, human anatomy, symbiotic biological relationships, light itself, numerical relationships, animal companionship, interacting and interdependent complex systems working in harmony....actually I could fill up the entire page.

I would say that when an entire class and a razor tongued teacher bear down on a 15 year old student in a close room setting the unquestioning, uncritical, acceptance of authority would be for the student to shut-up not stand up to that outrageous form of manipulation.

Actually what I said was that anyone with the courage to stand up in front of a classroom. particularly at age 15, and a razor tongue teacher deserved my attention as someone I should pay more attention to.

No evidence of critical thinking?? Sorry do not agree.

Standing your ground,

deciphering. an argument, and articulating a response is exactly what was done and is what critical thinking is all about.

Jim said: Standing your ground, deciphering. an argument, and articulating a response is exactly what was done and is what critical thinking is all about.

one student that had the courage to raise their hand to declare they believed in the Creation account.

Jim said: Purposeful design?? A beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, the care animals have for their youth, the remarkable homing instincts of Monarch Butterflies and other creatures, human anatomy, symbiotic biological relationships, light itself, numerical relationships, animal companionship, interacting and interdependent complex systems working in harmony....actually I could fill up the entire page.

A beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, the care animals have for their youth, the remarkable homing instincts of Monarch Butterflies and other creatures, human anatomy, symbiotic biological relationships, light itself, numerical relationships, animal companionship, interacting and interdependent complex systems working in harmony.…actually I could fill up the entire page.

For myself, I got tired of being told not to question or study creationism

For myself, I got tired of being told not to question, or study evolution

I am new at your System and I don't know if my posts are coming through.

Actually anyone can conform their thinking to what other people hope for. Challenging an idea and thinking through it or passed it and articulating those ideas is what critical thinking is all about

Critical thinking of course includes debate but more importantly includes articulating a response that can be understood by others. Of course a critical thinker breaks down their own ideas, but it is more about not conforming to the hopes and acceptances of others.

Jim said: Challenging an idea and thinking through it or passed it and articulating those ideas is what critical thinking is all about

Hi David: If you hope the items on my list do not display purposeful design that is entirely up to you.

Jim said: Hi David: If you hope the items on my list do not display purposeful design that is entirely up to you.

Actually anyone can conform their thinking to what other people hope for.

Challenging an idea and thinking through it or passed it and articulating those ideas is what critical thinking is all about

Critical thinking of course includes debate but more importantly includes articulating a response that can be understood by others.

Of course a critical thinker breaks down their own ideas, but it is more about not conforming to the hopes and acceptances of others.

A beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, the care animals have for their youth, the remarkable homing instincts of Monarch Butterflies and other creatures, human anatomy, symbiotic biological relationships, light itself, numerical relationships, animal companionship, interacting and interdependent complex systems working in harmony.…actually I could fill up the entire page.

I get the feeling we are splitting hair here. If you feel that a worm that turns to liquid and then a stunningly beautiful creature which somehow knows how to unfold itself and fly 1500 miles to the exact location the parents of that worm flew to two weeks earlier by the thousands every year for as long as we know without design, then that is entirely up to you.

Jim said: I get the feeling we are splitting hair here. If you feel that a worm that turns to liquid and then a stunningly beautiful creature which somehow knows how to unfold itself and fly 1500 miles to the exact location the parents of that worm flew to two weeks earlier by the thousands every year for as long as we know without design, then that is entirely up to you.

Jim said: The Matt Young story is so sad, yet unfortunately represents millions of young people his age that are abandoning the creation account. I found it interesting that he claimed the creation story has only been around since 1960 when in reality it was written about 3,500 years ago by Moses. Evolution is actually the newcomer on the block--Charles Darwin wrote his thesis on evolution only approximately 150 years ago.

My story is almost the exact opposite. I grew up getting indoctrinated by my parents into the religion evolution. I can still vividly remember my first Biology class in southern California and my teacher Mrs. Knapp openly mocking the one student that had the courage to raise their hand to declare they believed in the Creation account. That began my journey into believing in creation. I figured that if that student had the courage to stand up to the entire class and a razor tongued teacher I had better check the creation account out a little more carefully.

Do not agree. Going to school to learn a lot of information does not make you a critical thinker. Also, I do not agree, that the critical thinker simply conforms to the hopes of others. That is the problem we are seeing.

Jim said: Do not agree. Going to school to learn a lot of information does not make you a critical thinker. Also, I do not agree, that the critical thinker simply conforms to the hopes of others. That is the problem we are seeing.

I get the feeling we are splitting hair here. If you feel that a worm that turns to liquid and then a stunningly beautiful creature which somehow knows how to unfold itself and fly 1500 miles to the exact location the parents of that worm flew to two weeks earlier by the thousands every year for as long as we know without design, then that is entirely up to you.

Scott F said:

For me, creationism was the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance. And I really hated the way conservatism forced me to be a dick and a bigot to everyone, but it was just the way things were.

I'm not a psychologist, but it's certainly possible that's why you aren't a YEC any more. You're basic personality characteristics didn't fit in. Given half a chance, most people don't seem to have any problem being a dick and a bigot. I don't understand the "being a dick" part, but being a "bigot" is just way too easy to slip into: "Of course I'm better than they are, I'm an Atheist".

But I'd be interested if you could explore some more the notion that, "creationism was the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance". From what I can tell from the outside, it seems that creationism would lead to more dissonance, not less.

Mike Elzinga said: The following is a letter to the editor of our local newspaper back in 2006. The local creationists, who invite the likes of like Ken Ham to their churches, still hadn’t absorbed Kitzmiller vs. Dover; and they haven’t to this day. This may give some insight into the fear and loathing that is being nurtured in their churches. The melodramatic fear for their children is evident....

Scott F said: But Ham controls who will be in the audience. There will be no one but YEC's in the audience. Appeals to the audience who are present would be a losing tactic.

Nye's opening statement should hammer on how creationists attempt to find evidence of instant creation. He should compare their method to something like a lead detective investigating a woman's murder who has the belief that all women victims were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. Regardless of the evidence that contradicts his belief, he throws out the finger print, dna, alibi and all other evidence that supports the innocence of the one he believes committed the murder and therefore never solves the case. But continues to believe all murdered women were the victims of their husbands or boyfriends.

I would agree. That sounds like good advice. Everyone seems to like and intuitively understand CSI and detective stories. Framing Science as a Detective Story sounds like a winning strategy. It's about being a gumshoe, which everyone can relate to. The Scientific Method isn't about the specific details. It isn't wedded to specific outcomes. If he can show that Creationism is required to reach a predetermined conclusion (the Bible, or a specific interpretation of the Bible), and that Science is all about unbiased detective work, he might have a chance.

Maybe David might have a perspective on this, but the impression that I get from FL and from AIG is that the Creationist believes that the purpose of Science is to deny God, to deny the Bible. It's that fallacious YEC canard about, "your world view is just leading you to an atheistic interpretation of the evidence."

harold said:

wandrewfox said: Please don't interpret this comment as a defense of 6 day creationism. But can evolution explain chirality/miller-Urey/racemic mix conundrum yet? Sounds like faith to me

I try to be civil, but I think it's important to point out that this comment is exceptionally ignorant, stupid, and arrogant. Let's look at the preening arrogance. How much do you think "wandrewfox" actually knows or cares about amino acid chirality? That's right, probably jack $hit. He's almost certainly repeating something he read, barely comprehending, or some creationist or wingnut website. Yet he dared to dream that these "fancy words" would make him seem like some sort of brilliant critic of mainstream science.

ashleyhr said: "they’re okay with creation only being instantaneous from Earth’s reference frame" (David MacMillan - and it's useful to have the perspective of an ex-YEC, which Bill Nye of course isn't). But that does not sound like EITHER a viable origins 'model' for a modern scientific era OR (more seriously for the YEC audience) a biblical claim. It's some kind of desperate twisting of Einsteinian relativity perhaps.

We don't have to simply rely on untestable assumptions about the past. We can test the "multiple varves per year" hypothesis by comparing the 14C (carbon-14) content of each varve with that of tree rings collected from a similar latitude. This method works because trees and diatoms both incorporate carbon into their tissues or shells that comes from the atmosphere"; "A varve deposited say 2,000 years ago should have a similar residual 14C content as a 2,000 year old tree ring. The beauty of this comparison is that it will be true even if decay rates somehow turn out to be variable or if the 14C content of the ancient atmosphere is unknown. In other words, the test is independent of assumptions about decay rates and historical atmospheric processes. At Lake Suigetsu, hundreds of samples from among the upper 45,000 varves (as far back as 14C can be reliably detected) have been analyzed for 14C content and compared with tree rings. The results unambiguously confirm that each varve indeed represents one year of sediment deposition".

Ouch. Proof read, proof read, then hit submit:

"might have done to "indoctrinated" you" ---> "might have done to "indoctrinate" you"

"they surely you must" ---> "then surely you must"

Sigh…

Actually, you are the one not critically thinking. If a worm in Canada somehow gets to an exact location in Mexico every time showing up as beautiful creature by the thousands with no assistance for as long as know without design, them all you have to do is tell me how it's done and where this discussion is over.

Do not agree. Going to school to learn a lot of information does not make you a critical thinker.

Also, I do not agree, that the critical thinker simply conforms to the hopes of others.

That is the problem we are seeing.

Jim said: Actually, you are the one not critically thinking. If a worm in Canada somehow gets to an exact location in Mexico every time showing up as beautiful creature by the thousands with no assistance for as long as know without design, them all you have to do is tell me how it's done and where this discussion is over.

Actually, you are the one not critically thinking. If a worm in Canada somehow gets to an exact location in Mexico every time showing up as beautiful creature by the thousands with no assistance for as long as know without design, them all you have to do is tell me how it’s done and where this discussion is over.

Jim said: Hi Dave: Critical thinking is about deciphering an argument that has been presented and articulating a response. It assumed in critical thinking that one already understands their own ideas. Purposeful design?? A beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, the care animals have for their youth, the remarkable homing instincts of Monarch Butterflies and other creatures, human anatomy, symbiotic biological relationships, light itself, numerical relationships, animal companionship, interacting and interdependent complex systems working in harmony....actually I could fill up the entire page. I would say that when an entire class and a razor tongued teacher bear down on a 15 year old student in a close room setting the unquestioning, uncritical, acceptance of authority would be for the student to shut-up not stand up to that outrageous form of manipulation.

Jim said: Actually, you are the one not critically thinking. If a worm in Canada somehow gets to an exact location in Mexico every time showing up as beautiful creature by the thousands with no assistance for as long as know without design, them all you have to do is tell me how it's done and where this discussion is over.

You know, I was kind of sad to leave creationism, because it meant I could no longer believe that humans once fought fire-breathing flying dinosaurs. And that sucks, because fire-breathing flying dinosaurs would be AWESOME.

Then, today, I was watching a hummingbird. I realized that hummingbirds are tiny flying dinosaurs. And that is even more awesome.

The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion. And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence.

Hi Masked Panda: Did you know that condescending ridicule is a classic characteristic of the ultra religious?

Jim said: The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion. And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence.

david.starling.macmillan said:

But I'd be interested if you could explore some more the notion that, "creationism was the only way to avoid cognitive dissonance". From what I can tell from the outside, it seems that creationism would lead to more dissonance, not less.

We grew up certain that biological evolution was flatly impossible, that there were myriads of evidences completely inconsistent with an ancient earth and universe, and that the Bible was wholly accurate, divinely inspired, filled with confirmatory prophecies and only properly interpretable as historical narrative. With those preconceptions firmly ensconced from childhood, it took less cognitive dissonance to treat the scientific consensus as the product of confirmation bias and peer pressure than it would have to seriously challenge any of the preconceived notions. There was simply a huge, huge amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and pure falsehood standing in the way of reality.

I stopped being a conservative when I learned you didn’t have to be a bigot or a jackass to be a Christian (not to mention realizing that none of the edifices of conservativism actually work). I stopped being a creationist when I learned the dogmatic-young-earth-Christianity dichotomy was entirely fabricated (not to mention realizing that evolutionary theory was really quite brilliant). I’m agnostic now, because even though I’ve come to an understanding of Christianity that is neither offensive nor historically and logically bankrupt, I don’t really have a good reason to accept it as true.

Jim said: I would say that when an entire class and a razor tongued teacher bear down on a 15 year old student in a close room setting the unquestioning, uncritical, acceptance of authority would be for the student to shut-up not stand up to that outrageous form of manipulation.

The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion.

Jim said: Hi Masked Panda: Did you know that condescending ridicule is a classic characteristic of the ultra religious?

Scott F said: David, I appreciate the time and energy you are devoting to this...

Hi Dave: Did you know that Your holier-than-thou priestly robes are showing.?

Actually you are the one that has displayed several times now that you don't know what design is.

Jim said: Hi Dave: Did you know that Your holier-than-thou priestly robes are showing.?

Jim said: Actually you are the one that has displayed several times now that you don't know what design is.

Actually panda. The ultra religious always justify their ridicule by just claiming they're saying the truth.

Thank you for proving my point with spades.

Thank you for confirming that you don't know what design is.

Jim said: Thank you for proving my point with spades.

Hi Dave: Did you know that religious people are characterized judging others???

Thank you for confirming again your sense of religious superiority.

Jim said: Thank you for confirming again your sense of religious superiority.

That is quite a confession.

Jim said: Thank you for confirming again your sense of religious superiority.

It amazed me how religious people can get. You can explain it to them and they just keep acting religious. It is almost like they're proud of it.

Jim said: It amazed me how religious people can get. You can explain it to them and they just keep acting religious. It is almost like they're proud of it.

Did you know that religious people always think they are intellectually superior??? This is actually fun.

Jim said: Did you know that religious people always think they are intellectually superior??? This is actually fun.

Did you know that religious people are very self-centered and non hospitable???

Jim said: The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion.

And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence.

Jim said: The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion. And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence.

Jim said: Did you know that religious people are very self-centered and non hospitable???

Jim said: Did you know that religious people are very self-centered and non hospitable???

To defend that evolution is not a religion my suggestion is not use denial as a argument, condescendingly ridicule your opponent, become indignant at the thought of it, refer to the teachings of high priests within your assembly, and or attempt others to abide
by laws obtain through process within your belief system.

I still cannot tell if the religious ridicule is still there. To me there's nothing more religiously hypocritical than for an individual to deny they are religious while acting's ultra religious. That's a no-brainer.

PA Poland said: Simple example : in poker, a royal flush is the least likely hand. Given a deck of cards, there are three ways to get one : 1. Have it dealt to you directly (pure chance). 2. Go through the deck and pull out the needed cards (design). 3. Draw five cards. Keep the highest cards of the same suit, then shuffle the rest back into the deck and draw again. You will eventually get a royal flush, but it will take some time (evolution). You come into my office and see on my desk a royal flush. HOW DID I GET IT ? Most people will rule out option #1 (pure chance) because it is extremely unlikely the first five cards I drew were a royal flush. That leaves option #2 (design - I went through and picked out the needed cards) and option #3 (evolution - keep drawing, discarding and shuffling until I get it). AND NO WAY TO TELL FROM JUST THE RESULTS WHICH OPTION I USED TO GET IT.

Jim said: I still cannot tell if the religious ridicule is still there. To me there's nothing more religiously hypocritical than for an individual to deny they are religious while acting's ultra religious. That's a no-brainer.

The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion. And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence

Jim appears to think that "priestly robes" are a pretty bad thing, to imagine that I'd perceive that as an insult - which is apparently what he means to convey.

But as Jim has demonstrated that written expression is not his strong suit, on the theory that he doesn't actually mean it as an insult, I'll treat his question as a compliment instead, assuming that he means to attribute to me the learning and training in debate traditionally associated with the priestly order.

I regret, however, that I must decline the honour. If Jim thinks that I've been demonstrating learning and/or any actual debating skills so far, he is mistaken. It has taken neither to demolish his assertions - simple inspection was all that was required.

Dang! I thought that all authors were provided with "priestly robes". Just part of the "kit", with the 8 cornered tam, and all that.

That’s right, Jim. You jump right in there! The Panda doggies always love a new Sunday Fundy/IDiot chew-toy to rip and tear at. I have to say, though, you should have had more meat on your bones. They’re already down to that fluffy stuffing that makes a mess all over the floor. Ouch! LOL!

No, authors are not provided with items of clothing. If we were, the arse wouldn't be hanging out of our pants.

On the other hand, authors do get a free bowl of rose petals, so we can drop them down the Grand Canyon and listen for the echo. I've still got mine.

I posted a comment tonight for the first time in response to Matt Young story of how he abandoned a belief in the Creation account to the religious belief of evolution. I also challenged those on this site to critically thinking and articulation in regards to that subject and my related story. The only response was condescending ridicule, indignation to very thought of such an idea, self righteous mockery, a chilling dogmatic coldness, amazement that I was not accepting your laws, a reciting of teaching from high priests within your assembly, self-centered in hospitality, and religious judgement. One individual who claimed Evolution was about science actually admitted he did not know what design was. I challenge individuals visiting this site to show a some courage and get serious about critical thinking and articulation instead of hiding behind the priestly robes of your religion. I told the last individual I spoke with that there is nothing more hypocritical than a religious person who denies they are religious while acting ultra religious. My heart goes out to Matt Young and I one day he realizes what has happened in his life.

Hi David: Any time you want to drop those priestly robes and come down and critically think with us common folk. Feel free.

Sounds like the religious are radicalizing.

Jim said: One individual who claimed Evolution was about science actually admitted he did not know what design was.

Jim said: Sounds like the religious are radicalizing.

Keelyn said:

Jim said: Sounds like the religious are radicalizing.

Well, you would know.

Jim said: The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion. And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence.

Piffle.

Jim met with reasoned rebuttal. He didn't even attempt to engage the repeated, clearly-articulated demolition of his assertions. He appears not even to have understood it.

His flagrant distortions of the theory of evolution were corrected. He was asked to provide evidence of design, but could not even advance to the level of defining what design is. His list of evidences for design was refuted by demonstrating that each of his several statements were not evidence of design, no matter how it was defined.

His definition of the theory of evolution was exposed as false from beginning to end.

His further statements about students in class, his own upbringing and the profession of his wife were doubted, on reasonable and cogent grounds. He made no rejoinder.

It's true that patience with this sort of prevarication runs out fairly quickly on this board. Nevertheless, the first half-dozen exchanges with Jim were polite. Things went downhill only after he revealed his true colours.

Jim has no education or knowledge of the theory of evolution, as is obvious from his ridiculous falsehoods about what it says. He has no concept for rigorous or critical thinking, as is obvious from his false notion that this consists of "standing your ground" and accepting the words of the Bible.

In short, Jim doesn't understand what evidence is, and is disastrously incapable of reasoning from it. My heart goes out to his wife, should she actually exist.

Jim said: I posted a comment tonight for the first time in response to Matt Young story of how he abandoned a belief in the Creation account to the religious belief of evolution. I also challenged those on this site to critically thinking and articulation in regards to that subject and my related story. The only response was condescending ridicule, indignation to very thought of such an idea, self righteous mockery, a chilling dogmatic coldness, amazement that I was not accepting your laws, a reciting of teaching from high priests within your assembly, self-centered in hospitality, and religious judgement. One individual who claimed Evolution was about science actually admitted he did not know what design was. I challenge individuals visiting this site to show a some courage and get serious about critical thinking and articulation instead of hiding behind the priestly robes of your religion. I told the last individual I spoke with that there is nothing more hypocritical than a religious person who denies they are religious while acting ultra religious. My heart goes out to Matt Young and I one day he realizes what has happened in his life.

Jim said: To defend that evolution is not a religion my suggestion is not use denial as a argument,

condescendingly ridicule your opponent,

become indignant at the thought of it,

refer to the teachings of high priests within your assembly, and or attempt others to abide by laws obtain through process within your belief system.

Jim said: Sounds like the religious are radicalizing.

Hi Scott: I have read your comments carefully and they seem genuine so it with I would like to respond. I would first like to say that it really does amaze me that a group of individuals that claim not to be religious continuously act so religious and actually seem proud of it. But back to the questions you asked. My mother was indoctrinated into evolution when she was in high school. The program she was selected for was a special program designed for accelerated students. Her evolutionary beliefs affected her entire life and subsequently mine. My father seemed to just accept evolution all the while I was growing up. Both my parents had graduate degrees. It took until only a few weeks ago that she finally accepted the grace of God into her life.

By the religion of evolution I mean the hope that sometime in the past evolution occurred without being witnessed by anyone. I realize that Evolutionist interpret observances to establish their hope but, to me, that is different than actually witnessing it take place. I hope that answers your question.

Jim said: Hi Scott: I have read your comments carefully and they seem genuine so it with I would like to respond. I would first like to say that it really does amaze me that a group of individuals that claim not to be religious continuously act so religious and actually seem proud of it. But back to the questions you asked. My mother was indoctrinated into evolution when she was in high school. The program she was selected for was a special program designed for accelerated students. Her evolutionary beliefs affected her entire life and subsequently mine. My father seemed to just accept evolution all the while I was growing up. Both my parents had graduate degrees. It took until only a few weeks ago that she finally accepted the grace of God into her life. By the religion of evolution I mean the hope that sometime in the past evolution occurred without being witnessed by anyone. I realize that Evolutionist interpret observances to establish their hope but, to me, that is different than actually witnessing it take place. I hope that answers your question.

Forensic evidence is observed hoping in something that has not been witnessed is faith.

HI PA: I would like to address all your comments, however I do request that there be toning down a little. I do understand that these subject are deeply rooted and I promise to be as respectful as I can. I have experience with religious organizations. Denial of involvement, in my opinion, is not enough. Not everyone is religious--only those who participate in a hope that has not been witnessed and begin displaying all the signs of religious people--Self-righteousness, Hierarchy, Establish laws, Deferment, Radicalization, Control etjc. As a scientific person you should not need a definition of design or engineering since neither necessarily has anything to do with faith.

Ah, I thought I recognised the trend.

Hebrews 11:1. "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." My emphasis, of course.

That's why Jim wants to use the word "hope" for the conclusions of evolutionary theory. He wants to imply that it's a "faith".

And here's his reason for thinking that: "hoping in something that has not been witnessed is faith."

So not only is witness testimony reliable evidence of something, it is the only reliable evidence of something.

This is "were you there?" in a slightly different form, of course.

But wait! Jim also says "Forensic evidence is observed...", in contrast, presumably, to the "hope" of something that has not been "witnessed".

But evolutionary evidence is also observed. Imperfect replication is observed. Hereditable variation is observed. Differential reproductive success among the variants is observed. Preservation of the traits that produce higher reproductive success is observed. Extinction of those that produce lower reproductive success is observed. Speciation is observed. Ring species are observed.

Deep time is observed from tree ring data, varve data, sedimentation rates, at least four different methods of radiometric dating, deep space astronomy, at least half a dozen others all agree.

Slow change over deep time is observed in the fossil record, with dates calibrated by all the above methods. Shared genetic inheritance proportional to the derived recency of last common ancestor is observed.

Therefore, evidence for evolution is observed.

So why does Jim want to say that it isn't observed, but that it is only "hoped"? He's prepared to admit forensic evidence in court, it seems. Why not this? It's at least as rigorous, and far more voluminous in whole. Evolutionary theory isn't backed by one piece of evidence, but by thousands. Probably millions.

So why?

The only reasonable explanation is that Jim simply isn't aware of how much observed evidence there is. He has no knowledge of it. This is someone who thinks that his reaction to a sunset is evidence for a designer, but that all the above is not evidence for evolution. That is, it's someone who simply doesn't understand what evidence is.

This throws very great doubt on his assertion that he was raised to think critically about his positions. That he doesn't do that now is plainly obvious. I don't think he ever did.

FL said: This comment will soon be sent to the Bathroom Wall, and I fully accept that outcome. But Harold, what the hell is wrong with you, talking disrespectfully to Wandrewfox like that? He not only asked his question in a fully respectful manner, but he even started off by DISTANCING himself from creationism. Isn't that what you guys want? Weloome to Pandasthumb, Wandrewfox. See how they play the game. Heh. FL

david.starling.macmillan -

I stand by the accuracy of my reply to wandrewfox.

I'll accept some high level criticism of my unpleasant tone. The horse is out of the barn now, but in retrospect, it's more my style to demonstrate the flaws in an argument in an emotionally neutral way, rather than using words like "ignorant, stupid, and arrogant". (That's my style, and plenty of strong critics of creationism choose a more abrasive style.)

One-line drive-by "gotcha" comments that demonstrate lack of minimal research on the topic of interest are annoying, and that provoked some irritation on my part.

Having said that, the qualities of the argument were as I say, my predictions almost certainly accurate, and if you used similar arguments in the past, then at that time, as we all have at some time, you used arguments demonstrated those qualities. However, neither you, nor anyone else, as a person, is helplessly defined by these qualities. You matured and, if I may say, evolved.

I've said stupid, ignorant, and arrogant things in my life, and been rightly called out for it. When criticism is accurate I try to learn from it. And yes, like everyone, I do learn better from criticism that is given in a positive tone, which can include shared humor. However, if an unpleasant critic is right, they're still right. I stand by my assessment of the quality, and the motivations behind, that comment, unless proven otherwise by unexpectedly insightful dialogue from the original commenter.

harold said: I stand by the accuracy of my reply to wandrewfox. I'll accept some high level criticism of my unpleasant tone. The horse is out of the barn now, but in retrospect, it's more my style to demonstrate the flaws in an argument in an emotionally neutral way, rather than using words like "ignorant, stupid, and arrogant". (That's my style, and plenty of strong critics of creationism choose a more abrasive style.)

Hi there Jim,
I must agree with you fully that it is very unfortunate how too many here at the Panda hurl insults at visitors like yourself at the first sign that you do not belong to the initiated. I have written before that I wish we evilutionists here would be very, very patient with those of you who are not well informed about evolution and the debate between the supporters of evolution and creationists. As David MacMillan’s piece shows, and as we all should know anyway, it generally takes years for deeply ingrained beliefs to develop in another direction, so why in the world should anyone here at the Panda expect Jim to suddenly see the light after two days and a handful of rapid fire questions!!?? I think that if we discuss with him with the admittedly endless patience that may be required -- as long as he remains more or less civil, of course, as I believe he did for quite some time -- we just might have more success than if we lambast him after he fails to understand the arguments presented to him right off the bat. Such treatment also provides the creationist with a full quiver upon his return to his congregation, where he can talk of being endlessly excoriated for simply suggesting an alternative view, in which he will be half right!
That said, I’m afraid, Jim, that your argumentation here really does set you up for being shot down, even if it is sad that it is done here so brutally, even with someone not accustomed to a scientific or a research forum. You are employing your terms, such as “design” and “religious”, for instance, in a manner that is largely unintelligible to those who have worked on these issues intensely for decades. You have not, in fact, addressed any evidence or argument for or against evolution, opting instead to present purely religious thoughts and subjective experiences. And even those persons who responded to you politely and concretely for the longest time -- I refer to phhht, for example, who simply asked for a definition of the key term “design” while refraining from insults for many a post -- you did not respond to in any substantial way. Since your arguments were all essentially design based, this would have been your opportunity to show that you were at least acquainted with issues pertaining to possible definitions of design and/or the long and egregious debate on the topic. Your failing to do so, I think, is what brought on the storm.
I think you must admit as well that the courageous young girl standing up to her razor-tongued teacher, which I must agree will certainly have been an impressive experience, constitutes no evidence or rationale for or against the proposition at hand, as shown among other reasons by the fact that it takes exactly the same courage to stand up in a room full of evangelicals and profess your atheism or adherence to the explanations offered by evolution. This courage would be equally insubstantial as evidence or rationale for or against the belief. It is of course also unfortunate that the teacher chose to be razor-tongued rather than using the opportunity to patiently go through the clear differences in approach and evidential basis between the two.
So, Jim, if I may, I would suggest that you simply ignore the extremely unfortunate rude and ugly responses of too many here, take the high road, and concentrate on those few concrete questions and arguments that have been put to you. If you make a serious effort to address these, there is some chance, as slight as it may be, that you and others might learn a little something from the experience.
All the best, Jared

Jim said: The religion of evolution is the hope that without any witnesses and from nothingness and for no reason or explanation light, matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at precisely the same moment in an explosion. And then again Evolutionists hope that for no reason the resulting matter worked on itself until all the complexities beauty and order that we see today came into existence.

There's this stubborn refusal to understand that even if you presuppose the existence of a creator deity, common descent is still just as observable. It's maddening.

Jim said: By the religion of evolution I mean the hope that sometime in the past evolution occurred without being witnessed by anyone.

Jared Miller said: Hi there Jim, I must agree with you fully that it is very unfortunate how too many here at the Panda hurl insults at visitors like yourself at the first sign that you do not belong to the initiated. I have written before that I wish we evilutionists here would be very, very patient with those of you who are not well informed about evolution and the debate between the supporters of evolution and creationists. As David MacMillan’s piece shows, and as we all should know anyway, it generally takes years for deeply ingrained beliefs to develop in another direction, so why in the world should anyone here at the Panda expect Jim to suddenly see the light after two days and a handful of rapid fire questions!!?? I think that if we discuss with him with the admittedly endless patience that may be required -- as long as he remains more or less civil, of course, as I believe he did for quite some time -- we just might have more success than if we lambast him after he fails to understand the arguments presented to him right off the bat. Such treatment also provides the creationist with a full quiver upon his return to his congregation, where he can talk of being endlessly excoriated for simply suggesting an alternative view, in which he will be half right! That said, I’m afraid, Jim, that your argumentation here really does set you up for being shot down, even if it is sad that it is done here so brutally, even with someone not accustomed to a scientific or a research forum. You are employing your terms, such as “design” and “religious”, for instance, in a manner that is largely unintelligible to those who have worked on these issues intensely for decades. You have not, in fact, addressed any evidence or argument for or against evolution, opting instead to present purely religious thoughts and subjective experiences. And even those persons who responded to you politely and concretely for the longest time -- I refer to phhht, for example, who simply asked for a definition of the key term “design” while refraining from insults for many a post -- you did not respond to in any substantial way. Since your arguments were all essentially design based, this would have been your opportunity to show that you were at least acquainted with issues pertaining to possible definitions of design and/or the long and egregious debate on the topic. Your failing to do so, I think, is what brought on the storm. I think you must admit as well that the courageous young girl standing up to her razor-tongued teacher, which I must agree will certainly have been an impressive experience, constitutes no evidence or rationale for or against the proposition at hand, as shown among other reasons by the fact that it takes exactly the same courage to stand up in a room full of evangelicals and profess your atheism or adherence to the explanations offered by evolution. This courage would be equally insubstantial as evidence or rationale for or against the belief. It is of course also unfortunate that the teacher chose to be razor-tongued rather than using the opportunity to patiently go through the clear differences in approach and evidential basis between the two. So, Jim, if I may, I would suggest that you simply ignore the extremely unfortunate rude and ugly responses of too many here, take the high road, and concentrate on those few concrete questions and arguments that have been put to you. If you make a serious effort to address these, there is some chance, as slight as it may be, that you and others might learn a little something from the experience. All the best, Jared

Jim....Your opening post is totally crap. You made it up...total fiction. There must be thousands of
like fictional accounts floating around the web.

Next time you mention a mocking, evil teacher, be sure to add the broom standing in the corner...or the horns
projecting from the teacher's brow. Creationists will just as likely believe that and repeat as not and will
certainly gain more readers.

I woke up this morning to 100-odd new comments, a great many of them, I have to agree, utterly worthless insults. Contrary to his expectations, I will leave Mr. FL's comment intact, because he is right: Mr. harold is losing patience and becoming abrasive. Mr. Miller, a few comments above, has it exactly right, I think: Mr. Jim has not provided a single definition and so cannot be reasoned with effectively.

Thus, if we want to keep this discussion going, I suggest that Mr. Jim state exactly what he means by design and explain how we detect it. If he wants to classify evolution as a religion, he should show what properties evolution and religion have in common. I suggest further that I will send simple insults to the BW as soon as I see them, and I request that no one respond to them.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Jim; it has probably been almost 50 years since anyone called me a young man.

Yes Jared, if we're really patient with someone who comes in with a probably bogus story of his conversion, a completely false view of what "critical thinking" is, and the insult of "religion of evolution," no doubt he'll be receptive.

No, sorry, he was stupid and rude, while affecting superiority over everyone who thinks otherwise, immediately. From there he simply dug his heels in on his false notion of what critical thinking is (criticizing received science), spit upon education, and whined about how he was treated while ignoring all substantive responses to his substance-free tripe. He doesn't get to demand respect for lying about and insulting those he chooses to confront (adherents of the "religion of evolution"), and you don't get to demand it either, because it's grossly unfair. And he's not here to learn, he's here to witness and pretend superiority to those who deal with information in a much more intelligent manner. If that weren't obvious, his obvious lack of knowledge would be met differently, at least by many here (it is unfortunate that less arrogant creationists are often set upon too quickly by a few).

You're not reading the situation well at all. Also, there is something called the "Enter" key that can actually divide words into paragraphs and make reading more comprehensible.

Glen Davidson

I agree with Scott F that PA Poland's royal flush analogy is excellent, and I fully intend to steal it mercilessly, especially if (God forbid!) I ever have to discuss William Dembski's explanatory filter again.

The pedant in me has to point out, though, that all flushes are equally likely; the royal flush is the highest flush you can get, not the least probable. But it does not beat 4 aces!

Jim said: HI PA: I would like to address all your comments, however I do request that there be toning down a little. I do understand that these subject are deeply rooted and I promise to be as respectful as I can. I have experience with religious organizations. Denial of involvement, in my opinion, is not enough. Not everyone is religious--only those who participate in a hope that has not been witnessed and begin displaying all the signs of religious people--Self-righteousness, Hierarchy, Establish laws, Deferment, Radicalization, Control etjc. As a scientific person you should not need a definition of design or engineering since neither necessarily has anything to do with faith.

As a scientific person you should not need a definition of design or engineering since neither necessarily has anything to do with faith.

Purposeful design?? A beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, the care animals have for their youth, the remarkable homing instincts of Monarch Butterflies and other creatures, human anatomy, symbiotic biological relationships, light itself, numerical relationships, animal companionship, interacting and interdependent complex systems working in harmony.…actually I could fill up the entire page.

Matt Young said: I woke up this morning to 100-odd new comments, a great many of them, I have to agree, utterly worthless insults. Contrary to his expectations, I will leave Mr. FL's comment intact, because he is right: Mr. harold is losing patience and becoming abrasive. Mr. Miller, a few comments above, has it exactly right, I think: Mr. Jim has not provided a single definition and so cannot be reasoned with effectively. Thus, if we want to keep this discussion going, I suggest that Mr. Jim state exactly what he means by design and explain how we detect it. If he wants to classify evolution as a religion, he should show what properties evolution and religion have in common. I suggest further that I will send simple insults to the BW as soon as I see them, and I request that no one respond to them. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Jim; it has probably been almost 50 years since anyone called me a young man.

david.starling.macmillan said: There's this stubborn refusal to understand that even if you presuppose the existence of a creator deity, common descent is still just as observable. It's maddening.

Matt Young said: I woke up this morning to 100-odd new comments...

Scott F said:

Matt Young said: I woke up this morning to 100-odd new comments...

Woe to you for going to bed! A 24-hour internet can sure suck, sometimes. :-)

Jim said: I have experience with religious organizations.

As a scientific person you should not need a definition of design or engineering since neither necessarily has anything to do with faith.

harold said: Apologies for the "then/than" typo.

Matt Young said: I woke up this morning to 100-odd new comments, a great many of them, I have to agree, utterly worthless insults. Contrary to his expectations, I will leave Mr. FL's comment intact, because he is right: Mr. harold is losing patience and becoming abrasive. Mr. Miller, a few comments above, has it exactly right, I think: Mr. Jim has not provided a single definition and so cannot be reasoned with effectively. Thus, if we want to keep this discussion going, I suggest that Mr. Jim state exactly what he means by design and explain how we detect it. If he wants to classify evolution as a religion, he should show what properties evolution and religion have in common. I suggest further that I will send simple insults to the BW as soon as I see them, and I request that no one respond to them. Finally, I want to thank Mr. Jim; it has probably been almost 50 years since anyone called me a young man.

Jim said: HI PA: I would like to address all your comments, however I do request that there be toning down a little. I do understand that these subject are deeply rooted and I promise to be as respectful as I can.

I have experience with religious organizations. Denial of involvement, in my opinion, is not enough. Not everyone is religious--only those who participate in a hope that has not been witnessed and begin displaying all the signs of religious people--Self-righteousness, Hierarchy, Establish laws, Deferment, Radicalization, Control etjc.

As a scientific person you should not need a definition of design or engineering since neither necessarily has anything to do with faith.

wandrewfox said:

harold said: Apologies for the "then/than" typo.

Whew. That was quite a spiel Harold. Yes I am a right winger, unabashedly, and I would give a high probability to the truth of my assertion that you are a leftwinger/liberal/atheist/progressive/statist. Why? because you don't have to get two sentences into a dialogue with progs before the dialogue devolves into an invective filled bill of particulars and ad hominem attacks. You really showed your worth there. I am so convinced now. The only arrogance comes from you, who are angered beyond civility by my posing an obvious weakness in your explanation. How dare I do that! Abiogenesis is an achilles heel to the materialistic explanation of life. Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics.

Abiogenesis is an achilles heel to the materialistic explanation of life. Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics

Whew, late to the party as usual!

I read "Jim's" first comment and thought, "Oh, boy, here we go again!"

Sorry, Jimbo, but I don't believe a word of your "story" and it's not original and poorly written, to boot. My kingdom for a fresh approach from our creationist troll friends! Is it too much to ask, something new?

News flash - Pious student mocked by science teacher. How many times have I heard that? So many, oh, so many.

Poor widdle Jimbo comes to the mean old science blog with some honest, respectful questions and only seeks some honest, respectful answers. Well, I'll see your Respect Card and play you the Wikipedia Card. You could learn a lot on your own, Jimbo, but that's not your game, is it? No, widdle Jimbo just wants to stir up a little trouble, perhaps earn some Fundie Points or whatever.

And, then, right on cue comes Jared throwing down the Tone Card to which I counter with my WhoCares Card. Oh, that I could push these soft little anti-science twerkers through a semester of graduate school in chemistry. The weekly seminars, the meatgrinder courses, the take-no-prisoners discussion groups and just the Binford 3000-level of Intellectualism would turn these wannabes into gibbering piles of protoplasm. Oh, wait, they might have gotten ahead of me.

In all my years of following this stuff I have encountered legions of dishonest Jimbo's, Jaredbo's and FSM forbid, FL's, who feign interest but just want to argue pointlessly. Far fewer have been the people who have stumbled into the food fight and actually learned what's going on and discovered some cool stuff.

The PT forum has been an excellent training ground to hear the latest dishonest tactics by creationists and to develop counterpoint arguments that can be used in state school board presentations, for example. That said, I am continuously disappointed by the low quality of chew toys we've encountered in recent years.

wandrewfox said:

harold said: Apologies for the "then/than" typo.

Whew. That was quite a spiel Harold. Yes I am a right winger, unabashedly, and I would give a high probability to the truth of my assertion that you are a leftwinger/liberal/atheist/progressive/statist.

Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics.

Matt Young said: I agree with Scott F that PA Poland's royal flush analogy is excellent, and I fully intend to steal it mercilessly, especially if (God forbid!) I ever have to discuss William Dembski's explanatory filter again. The pedant in me has to point out, though, that all flushes are equally likely; the royal flush is the highest flush you can get, not the least probable. But it does not beat 4 aces!

harold said:

Matt Young said: I agree with Scott F that PA Poland's royal flush analogy is excellent, and I fully intend to steal it mercilessly, especially if (God forbid!) I ever have to discuss William Dembski's explanatory filter again. The pedant in me has to point out, though, that all flushes are equally likely; the royal flush is the highest flush you can get, not the least probable. But it does not beat 4 aces!

Straight flush beats four of a kind in standard poker hand rankings (royal flush is a type of straight flush). Games that use variant rankings, such as lowball, implicitly refer to the standard ranking. However, when the rules of poker were being developed during the nineteenth century, there was a period when four of a kind was ranked above straight flush, even though four of a kind is more common in the main poker games (Texas or Omaha hold'em, seven stud, five stud, or draw). Some documents suggest that this is because there can never be a tie between two different fours of a kind. In games where each player receives completely individual cards, although not in community card games like hold'em, theoretically two players could tie, each with a different royal flush. There is no suit ranking in poker. It's believed that the popular culture image of "four aces" as a great poker hand may have originated at a time when it WAS considered the best hand, but any straight flush now beats it. However, four aces is still an extremely high ranking hand, and four aces losing to a straight flush would be an extreme "bad beat".

Scott F said: I know you know this, and I realize the point you were trying to make. I just believe that you didn't go quite far enough and make the next point. When you say there is "no way to tell from just the results which option I used to get it", it doesn't tell the whole story. Because, in the real world, we have much more information than just the royal flush itself. We have all the other stuff around it. All that "convergence, neither sought nor fabricated."

Straight flush beats four of a kind in standard poker hand rankings (royal flush is a type of straight flush).

wandrewfox said: My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics.

Matt Young said:

Straight flush beats four of a kind in standard poker hand rankings (royal flush is a type of straight flush).

Completely off task, but I have a deck of cards and draw 4 aces and a deuce. Now let's see you draw a royal flush from the remaining cards.

harold said:

wandrewfox said:

harold said: Apologies for the "then/than" typo.

Whew. That was quite a spiel Harold. Yes I am a right winger, unabashedly, and I would give a high probability to the truth of my assertion that you are a leftwinger/liberal/atheist/progressive/statist. Why? because you don't have to get two sentences into a dialogue with progs before the dialogue devolves into an invective filled bill of particulars and ad hominem attacks. You really showed your worth there. I am so convinced now. The only arrogance comes from you, who are angered beyond civility by my posing an obvious weakness in your explanation. How dare I do that! Abiogenesis is an achilles heel to the materialistic explanation of life. Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics.

Hi, Wandrew, glad to see you back, and thanks for confirming the accuracy of my prediction. My apologies for my initial blunt language. Let's try again. I've got a few of questions for you, in the interest of dialogue. They're valid and logical questions. Answering them will help you to fully explain and defend your point of view. 1) What is your explanation of the restricted chirality of amino acids in the biosphere? Who made biological amino acids mainly restricted in chirality? Precisely how did they do this? Precisely when did they do this? 2) Others have suggested scientific explanations for restricted amino acid chirality in the biosphere. What tests do you propose, that would test your suggestions against theirs, and show yours to be better supported by the evidence? 3) Just to test another of my own predictions, where did you learn about AA chirality? Can you provide links or citations to your source of information? 4) Unless included in your answers above, can you specifically explain why, even if AA chirality in the biosphere is due to supernatural intervention, this would support your religion over any other religion?

Abiogenesis is an achilles heel to the materialistic explanation of life. Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics

5) If your objection is to abiogenesis, does this mean that you accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of the subsequent relatedness and diversity of the biosphere, once cellular life was present?

I think he said, “Straight Flush”, not Royal Flush.

Here you go wandreqwfox:

Science 292:658-659 (2001)

This reference presents evidence that there is a continuous record of ice core data going back 440,000 years. It also presents five other independent lines of evidence, all of which show that the earth must at least be millions of years old. Do you think the earth is only thousands of years old? Why?

I noticed that you never answered the question Harold asked at the end of his response. Is abiogenesis the only problem you have with the theory of evolution? Do you accept common descent? What is your alternative explanation for the origin and diversity of life?

If you want to discuss these issues, the bathroom wall is the place. THis thread is for a discussion about the Nye "debate".

Scott F said:

wandrewfox said: My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics.

Really? Does your faith in God rely on the fact that science cannot yet explain something? What if science can explain something that it could not explain before? Would that change your faith in God? Perhaps you still believe by faith in Thor, because science cannot explain thunder? Perhaps you still believe in Zeus by faith, because science cannot explain lightening? Perhaps you believe in God's promise by faith alone, because science cannot explain a rainbow? This is called a "God of the Gaps" argument, or an argument from personal incredulity. Science cannot today explain "X", "Y", and "Z", therefore "Jesus", or "Zeus", or "Vishnu". If tomorrow science can explain "X", will the unknowns "Y" and "Z" still be sufficient to believe in Vishnu by "faith" alone? Even if Science can explain "X", but I don't understand the explanation, is that sufficient to believe in Zeus by "faith" alone? However, you seem to be missing a key factor. You seem to believe that when Science can't explain something, that Scientists simply claim, by faith alone, that they know what the answer is. This is not the case. The default position of Science is, "I do not know". Not "God Did It". Not "Vishnu Created It". Simply, "I do not know". Science does not currently make any claim of knowledge for how life arose. The current answer to abiogenesis from Science is, "I don't know." The statement, "I do not know" is not a statement of faith. It is a statement of current fact. But Science goes one step further. Science says, "I do not know, but I might be able to figure it out. Let me try an experiment to see if I can gain a better understanding of what's going on, or of what happened in the past." That's the extent of the "faith" of Science: "I do not know, but I might be able to figure it out some day." When your faith says, "Oh, we can never know that. That's one of God's Eternal Mysteries", or when your faith says, "Well, God did that for his mysterious reasons", where does that leave us? How useful is that answer? What does that lead us to? Well, sometimes it leads us to a better appreciation of God's power, doesn't it? It leads us to worship God more, because he is truly awesome, and can do lots of things that we can't understand and, more importantly, will never understand. Because Vishnu can do anything. So, we are left with questions that we will never understand. Answers that we can never even hope to understand. More importantly, we are left with questions that aren't even worth trying to ask. If the answer to every question is, "Well, God's ways and reasons are mysterious, and not for man to know", then why bother asking questions? We know what the answer is to every question before we even ask. We have absolute certainty in every answer, because every answer is the same: "God Did It". How does this help us prevent disease? How does this help us harness the power of lightening? Should we even try? Does God even want us to know these things? The story of Genesis tells us that God does not want us to have knowledge. That was the whole point of The Fall, right? Man tried to seek knowledge, and the entire universe suffered. How dare you ask questions? Is that the kind of faith you are talking about? Is that the kind of faith that you believe Scientists have? I don't expect this to convince you of anything. But the power of Science is in asking questions; questions that we don't already know the answer to. The death of "faith", the fear that "faith" has is when one starts asking questions that don't have pat answers. Are you prepared to ask yourself questions?

Matt Young said:

Straight flush beats four of a kind in standard poker hand rankings (royal flush is a type of straight flush).

Completely off task, but I have a deck of cards and draw 4 aces and a deuce. Now let's see you draw a royal flush from the remaining cards.

I readily admit that I rely upon faith in my worldview. I find it interesting that materialists will not admit to the same.

DS said: Here you go wandreqwfox: Science 292:658-659 (2001) This reference presents evidence that there is a continuous record of ice core data going back 440,000 years. It also presents five other independent lines of evidence, all of which show that the earth must at least be millions of years old. Do you think the earth is only thousands of years old? Why? I noticed that you never answered the question Harold asked at the end of his response. Is abiogenesis the only problem you have with the theory of evolution? Do you accept common descent? What is your alternative explanation for the origin and diversity of life? If you want to discuss these issues, the bathroom wall is the place. THis thread is for a discussion about the Nye "debate".

wandrewfox said: Actually the "God of the gaps" keeps expanding and becoming insurmountable, because as science becomes more equipped to thoroughly analyze our world, the falsity of assumptions built into the materialistic creation worldview become more apparent, such as my chirality objection. Darwin didn't know about that one, now did he?! I readily admit that I rely upon faith in my worldview. I find it interesting that materialists will not admit to the same.

Wandrewfox -

I’m glad to see you again. Would you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? I’ll repeat them here for your convenience.

1) What is your explanation of the restricted chirality of amino acids in the biosphere? Who made biological amino acids mainly restricted in chirality? Precisely how did they do this? Precisely when did they do this?

2) Others have suggested scientific explanations for restricted amino acid chirality in the biosphere. What tests do you propose, that would test your suggestions against theirs, and show yours to be better supported by the evidence?

3) Just to test another of my own predictions, where did you learn about AA chirality? Can you provide links or citations to your source of information?

4) Unless included in your answers above, can you specifically explain why, even if AA chirality in the biosphere is due to supernatural intervention, this would support your religion over any other religion?

5) If your objection is to abiogenesis, does this mean that you accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of the subsequent relatedness and diversity of the biosphere, once cellular life was present?

I have some more, too, now.

"I readily admit that I rely upon faith in my worldview. I find it interesting that materialists will not admit to the same."

6) Why did you change the subject to the “worldview” of “materialists”, instead of staying on the topic that you introduced, the chirality of amino acids in the biosphere?

7) But I will ask a question about your treatment of “worldview”. Let’s say you’re right, and everybody’s “worldview” is grounded in some kind of “faith”. Why do you think that makes your world view any better?

Also, for your convenience, I’ll make an attempt to repeat this comment whenever you appear, until you answer the questions.

Jim said: Forensic evidence is observed hoping in something that has not been witnessed is faith.

wandrewfox said: If you had bothered to read what I have written, I am not persuaded by the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

wandrewfox said:

DS said: Here you go wandreqwfox: Science 292:658-659 (2001) This reference presents evidence that there is a continuous record of ice core data going back 440,000 years. It also presents five other independent lines of evidence, all of which show that the earth must at least be millions of years old. Do you think the earth is only thousands of years old? Why? I noticed that you never answered the question Harold asked at the end of his response. Is abiogenesis the only problem you have with the theory of evolution? Do you accept common descent? What is your alternative explanation for the origin and diversity of life? If you want to discuss these issues, the bathroom wall is the place. THis thread is for a discussion about the Nye "debate".

If you had bothered to read what I have written, I am not persuaded by the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Harold's Q - What is your explanation of the restricted chirality of amino acids in the biosphere? Who made biological amino acids mainly restricted in chirality? Precisely how did they do this? Precisely when did they do this? Your A - Explanation of chirality – God created cosmos and life. Source of my knowledge – Self taught.

wandrewfox said:

harold said:

wandrewfox said:

harold said: Apologies for the "then/than" typo.

Whew. That was quite a spiel Harold. Yes I am a right winger, unabashedly, and I would give a high probability to the truth of my assertion that you are a leftwinger/liberal/atheist/progressive/statist. Why? because you don't have to get two sentences into a dialogue with progs before the dialogue devolves into an invective filled bill of particulars and ad hominem attacks. You really showed your worth there. I am so convinced now. The only arrogance comes from you, who are angered beyond civility by my posing an obvious weakness in your explanation. How dare I do that! Abiogenesis is an achilles heel to the materialistic explanation of life. Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics.

Hi, Wandrew, glad to see you back, and thanks for confirming the accuracy of my prediction. My apologies for my initial blunt language. Let's try again. I've got a few of questions for you, in the interest of dialogue. They're valid and logical questions. Answering them will help you to fully explain and defend your point of view. 1) What is your explanation of the restricted chirality of amino acids in the biosphere? Who made biological amino acids mainly restricted in chirality? Precisely how did they do this? Precisely when did they do this? 2) Others have suggested scientific explanations for restricted amino acid chirality in the biosphere. What tests do you propose, that would test your suggestions against theirs, and show yours to be better supported by the evidence? 3) Just to test another of my own predictions, where did you learn about AA chirality? Can you provide links or citations to your source of information? 4) Unless included in your answers above, can you specifically explain why, even if AA chirality in the biosphere is due to supernatural intervention, this would support your religion over any other religion?

Abiogenesis is an achilles heel to the materialistic explanation of life. Yes I am a creationist, although not a 24 hour day creationist. My worldview relies upon faith. So does yours, because science cannot explain exactly how life arose out of elements and laws of physics

5) If your objection is to abiogenesis, does this mean that you accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of the subsequent relatedness and diversity of the biosphere, once cellular life was present?

Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that? If so, do you concede that you are expressing "faith" that your worldview will be validated?

wandrewfox said: Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that? If so, do you concede that you are expressing "faith" that your worldview will be validated?

wandrewfox said:

DS said: Here you go wandreqwfox: Science 292:658-659 (2001) This reference presents evidence that there is a continuous record of ice core data going back 440,000 years. It also presents five other independent lines of evidence, all of which show that the earth must at least be millions of years old. Do you think the earth is only thousands of years old? Why? I noticed that you never answered the question Harold asked at the end of his response. Is abiogenesis the only problem you have with the theory of evolution? Do you accept common descent? What is your alternative explanation for the origin and diversity of life? If you want to discuss these issues, the bathroom wall is the place. THis thread is for a discussion about the Nye "debate".

If you had bothered to read what I have written, I am not persuaded by the view that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

wandrewfox said: Actually the "God of the gaps" keeps expanding and becoming insurmountable, because as science becomes more equipped to thoroughly analyze our world, the falsity of assumptions built into the materialistic creation worldview become more apparent, such as my chirality objection. Darwin didn't know about that one, now did he?!

wandrewfox said: Why is Christianity the one true faith system? Inter alia, Christianity is the only faith system, to my knowledge, that holds that man is imperfect and fallen, but takes the burden off man and places the burden on God for reconciliation. If a person accepts that the sacrificial death of the infallible God/man, Jesus, is the propitiation for his or her sin, God redeems the person and imputes him or her with perfect righteousness, so that the relationship between God and the person is restored. All other faith systems involving a belief in a transcendant God, to my knowledge, are works based, meaning that the deity is weighing the person's works throughout life and determining whether the person has tipped the scales onto the good works side. From a logic standpoint, Christianity is the only faith system that makes sense, because man, once fallen, can never regain perfection. I am not a theistic evolutionist, I tend to fall into Hugh Ross's camp.

Maybe you can answer a few questions for me: Can anyone point me to the source material for the assertion that ice core samples show at least 100,000 years of seasonal cycles? I have looked for it myself and I have been unable to find it. From researching the inception of modern man, I have been unable to find any evidence of the length of time for genetic changes to the Y chromosome to take place on average, except that researchers have taken their presumptive age of modern man and divided by the number of changes along the path out of Africa, which seems like bootstrapping to me. Any observable, measurable basis for stating that changes occur to the human genome on average at a certain rate?

wandrewfox said: I am not a theistic evolutionist, I tend to fall into Hugh Ross's camp.

wandrewfox said: From researching the inception of modern man, I have been unable to find any evidence of the length of time for genetic changes to the Y chromosome to take place on average, except that researchers have taken their presumptive age of modern man and divided by the number of changes along the path out of Africa, which seems like bootstrapping to me. Any observable, measurable basis for stating that changes occur to the human genome on average at a certain rate?

Scott F said: Jim, This last part (among others) has me perplexed:

As a scientific person you should not need a definition of design or engineering since neither necessarily has anything to do with faith.

wandrewfox said: Why is Christianity the one true faith system? Inter alia, Christianity is the only faith system, to my knowledge, that holds that man is imperfect and fallen, but takes the burden off man and places the burden on God for reconciliation. If a person accepts that the sacrificial death of the infallible God/man, Jesus, is the propitiation for his or her sin, God redeems the person and imputes him or her with perfect righteousness, so that the relationship between God and the person is restored. All other faith systems involving a belief in a transcendant God, to my knowledge, are works based, meaning that the deity is weighing the person’s works throughout life and determining whether the person has tipped the scales onto the good works side. From a logic standpoint, Christianity is the only faith system that makes sense, because man, once fallen, can never regain perfection.

Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that? If so, do you concede that you are expressing “faith” that your worldview will be validated?

bigdakine said: I see a tree on fire. I wish to study the chemical process by which fire consumes the tree. Is it necessary to know how the fire started?

Jim
Young Earth creationism is a reactionary response amongst some fundamentalist Christians to modern science (especially biology, geology and astronomy), using the book of Genesis as its main inspiration, and it did indeed begin around 1960.

You have to be able to say “Science will never be able to explain it, therefore God.”

Scott F said:

wandrewfox said: Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that? If so, do you concede that you are expressing "faith" that your worldview will be validated?

Did abiogenesis happen exactly once? More than once? My understanding is that Science will never really know.

Given the potential experiments that are on going, or conceived of, we might eventually figure out if it was possible for life to have originated in one particular way. My guess is, that we're going to find out that life might have originated in several possible ways. But in truth, we will probably never know, simply because the evidence has long been destroyed.

Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that?

If so, do you concede that you are expressing “faith” that your worldview will be validated?

Why is Christianity the one true faith system? Inter alia, Christianity is the only faith system, to my knowledge, that holds that man is imperfect and fallen, but takes the burden off man and places the burden on God for reconciliation. If a person accepts that the sacrificial death of the infallible God/man, Jesus, is the propitiation for his or her sin, God redeems the person and imputes him or her with perfect righteousness, so that the relationship between God and the person is restored. All other faith systems involving a belief in a transcendant God, to my knowledge, are works based, meaning that the deity is weighing the person’s works throughout life and determining whether the person has tipped the scales onto the good works side. From a logic standpoint, Christianity is the only faith system that makes sense, because man, once fallen, can never regain perfection.

harold said: Wandrewfox - I’m glad to see you again. Would you do me the courtesy of answering my questions? I’ll repeat them here for your convenience. 1) What is your explanation of the restricted chirality of amino acids in the biosphere? Who made biological amino acids mainly restricted in chirality? Precisely how did they do this? Precisely when did they do this? 2) Others have suggested scientific explanations for restricted amino acid chirality in the biosphere. What tests do you propose, that would test your suggestions against theirs, and show yours to be better supported by the evidence? 3) Just to test another of my own predictions, where did you learn about AA chirality? Can you provide links or citations to your source of information? 4) Unless included in your answers above, can you specifically explain why, even if AA chirality in the biosphere is due to supernatural intervention, this would support your religion over any other religion? 5) If your objection is to abiogenesis, does this mean that you accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of the subsequent relatedness and diversity of the biosphere, once cellular life was present? I have some more, too, now. "I readily admit that I rely upon faith in my worldview. I find it interesting that materialists will not admit to the same." 6) Why did you change the subject to the “worldview” of “materialists”, instead of staying on the topic that you introduced, the chirality of amino acids in the biosphere? 7) But I will ask a question about your treatment of “worldview”. Let’s say you’re right, and everybody’s “worldview” is grounded in some kind of “faith”. Why do you think that makes your world view any better? Also, for your convenience, I’ll make an attempt to repeat this comment whenever you appear, until you answer the questions.

I realize we've wandered OT, but these discussions seem to have been far more fruitful than many in recent times, both in terms of exploring different perspectives on Creationism, and in (potential) ways of countering those misconceptions. Though, some old time hands may find them repetitive.

A little off topic but since we're talking about abiogenesis I can't help but bring up the latest work from MSL and Curiosity. Here they talk about the latest work they're doing, the mission goals have "evolved from initially seeking to understand the habitability of ancient Mars to developing predictive models for the taphonomy of martian organic matter."

I like to think that given the right ingredients and conditions, the 'spark of life' is inevitable in a long enough time span. I encourage our resident trolls to try to read and understand that link (it's not just rhetoric so you might have a hard time digesting it) but it shows you the proper way to approach science: making hypotheses and testing them, using the acquired information to reshape hypotheses and subsequently test those, constantly building and reforming as the predictive power grows stronger - until your null hypothesis is the one predicted by your model.

Keelyn said: Well, I wasn't going to make any further posts to you on this thread, but then I noticed this:

wandrewfox said: From researching the inception of modern man, I have been unable to find any evidence of the length of time for genetic changes to the Y chromosome to take place on average, except that researchers have taken their presumptive age of modern man and divided by the number of changes along the path out of Africa, which seems like bootstrapping to me. Any observable, measurable basis for stating that changes occur to the human genome on average at a certain rate?

For the fundamentals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate For humans specifically: http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full For a little controversy (you will like that): http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/variation/human-mutation-rate-review-2010.html Gee, that didn’t take much effort – about 2.5 minutes. Have you ever had to do any kind of research for a paper, ever? Apparent not.

Keelyn said:

Scott F said:

wandrewfox said: Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that? If so, do you concede that you are expressing "faith" that your worldview will be validated?

Did abiogenesis happen exactly once? More than once? My understanding is that Science will never really know.

While I agree with that statement, it is irrelevant. Researches do not have to know how many times. All that has to be demonstrated is that it can happen. It doesn’t matter if we know if it was the actual circumstances of the environment of the time that originated life on this planet – that we can’t know with any certainty because all traces of the evidence are long gone as far as researcher can currently tell. But, if (IF) it were found that prebiotic chemicals could into proto-cells of some kind and gradually (or abruptly) increase in complexity under an environment that is reasonably realistic on an early Earth, then case closed. We don’t need to know if the laboratory conditions were the exact conditions of life’s origin – we only need to show experimentally that a mechanism exists that works and I am confident that won’t be too long from now.

Given the potential experiments that are on going, or conceived of, we might eventually figure out if it was possible for life to have originated in one particular way. My guess is, that we're going to find out that life might have originated in several possible ways. But in truth, we will probably never know, simply because the evidence has long been destroyed.

Again, researchers only need to show a mechanism that works. That is the research being done right now by Jack Szostak’s lab. Give them twenty years or less – they are going to close the “god-did-it” gap shut. If I am wrong …well, give them another twenty and wait and see.

I don't know who proposed it, but love the come-back to all questions of the "Were you there?" sort: "Why, yes, I was. Saw the whole thing. I testify that life arose from inanimate basal matter. I witnessed the common descent of all living things from that first replicator. Fact."

And when they splutter, "No, you didn't!", you say: "Yeah? How do you know?"

So that would be a no. The latest troll doesn't accept common descent, because, wait for it, "were you there"!

The bathroom wall awaits. People will probably not be so polite there.

Dave Luckett said: I don't know who proposed it, but love the come-back to all questions of the "Were you there?" sort: "Why, yes, I was. Saw the whole thing. I testify that life arose from inanimate basal matter. I witnessed the common descent of all living things from that first replicator. Fact." And when they splutter, "No, you didn't!", you say: "Yeah? How do you know?"

Dave Luckett said: I don't know who proposed it, but love the come-back to all questions of the "Were you there?" sort: "Why, yes, I was. Saw the whole thing. I testify that life arose from inanimate basal matter. I witnessed the common descent of all living things from that first replicator. Fact." And when they splutter, "No, you didn't!", you say: "Yeah? How do you know?"

wandrewfox said:

Keelyn said: Well, I wasn't going to make any further posts to you on this thread, but then I noticed this:

wandrewfox said: From researching the inception of modern man, I have been unable to find any evidence of the length of time for genetic changes to the Y chromosome to take place on average, except that researchers have taken their presumptive age of modern man and divided by the number of changes along the path out of Africa, which seems like bootstrapping to me. Any observable, measurable basis for stating that changes occur to the human genome on average at a certain rate?

For the fundamentals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate For humans specifically: http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full For a little controversy (you will like that): http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/genomics/variation/human-mutation-rate-review-2010.html Gee, that didn’t take much effort – about 2.5 minutes. Have you ever had to do any kind of research for a paper, ever? Apparent not.

Keelyn, Why don't you drop the smugness. I can find the links. But, as pointed out in the last one, there is circular logic - bootstratpping.

wandrewfox said: Keelyn, Why don't you drop the smugness. I can find the links.

I have been unable to find any evidence of the length of time for genetic changes to the Y chromosome to take place on average …

But, as pointed out in the last one, there is circular logic - bootstratpping.

Here is an excerpt from the middle one: "where t is the time since the species have diverged measured in generations, μ is the mutation rate, and Ne is the ancestral effective population size (KIMURA 1983a). The mutation rate was estimated from μ = k/(2t + 4Ne), assuming different values of t and Ne taken from the literature. Most of the uncertainty in the estimate of the total mutation rate derives from uncertainty concerning divergence time, ancestral population size, and generation length (rather than from sampling variance in estimates of rates of molecular evolution). Thus, a range of values for population size, divergence time, and generation length was used to provide a range of values for mutation rates. Comparison of divergence on the X chromosome to divergence on autosomes (kX/kA) was used to estimate the ratio of the male mutation rate to the female mutation rate (α = μm/μf) following MIYATA et al. (1987):" See that phrase "Where t is the time since the species diverged"

That to me is bootstrapping. There is no way to falsify this, because no one is around for enough years to observe whether this assumption is correct.

Scott F said:

Keelyn said:

Scott F said:

wandrewfox said: Because science has not yet been able to explain abiogenesis, do you hold out that eventually science will be able to prove that? If so, do you concede that you are expressing "faith" that your worldview will be validated?

Did abiogenesis happen exactly once? More than once? My understanding is that Science will never really know.

While I agree with that statement, it is irrelevant. Researches do not have to know how many times. All that has to be demonstrated is that it can happen. It doesn’t matter if we know if it was the actual circumstances of the environment of the time that originated life on this planet – that we can’t know with any certainty because all traces of the evidence are long gone as far as researcher can currently tell. But, if (IF) it were found that prebiotic chemicals could into proto-cells of some kind and gradually (or abruptly) increase in complexity under an environment that is reasonably realistic on an early Earth, then case closed. We don’t need to know if the laboratory conditions were the exact conditions of life’s origin – we only need to show experimentally that a mechanism exists that works and I am confident that won’t be too long from now.

Given the potential experiments that are on going, or conceived of, we might eventually figure out if it was possible for life to have originated in one particular way. My guess is, that we're going to find out that life might have originated in several possible ways. But in truth, we will probably never know, simply because the evidence has long been destroyed.

Again, researchers only need to show a mechanism that works. That is the research being done right now by Jack Szostak’s lab. Give them twenty years or less – they are going to close the “god-did-it” gap shut. If I am wrong …well, give them another twenty and wait and see.

Hi Keelyn, I certainly agree with everything you said. Identifying a possible way that life could have arisen is certainly sufficient from a scientific perspective. But the typical Creationist question is, will Science ever know the exact mechanism? Since the answer to that particular question will always be "No" (for the reasons that you state), then that "god gap" will always exist. Or, at least it will exist until we find a few more life-bearing planets, and we can confirm or exclude one or more specific abiogenesis hypotheses. It's just another variation on the theme of, "Were you there?"

Keelyn asked: Can someone explain to me what he is talking about?

Hi Matt: I read your post and commented last night. I am sorry that you no longer accept the Biblical account of creation. The barrage of comments last night were difficult in that I am texting off a small cell phone and it is difficult to see the text before I press send. Therefore there are some typos and some difficulties in communication. The session last night ended around 2 o'clock in the morning and I have a few minutes tonight. I run my own mechanical engineering company and I am in the midst of a lot of work so my time is limited. Quite frankly, I have never experienced such large amount of self-righteous ridicule from a group online that went from bad to worse or should I say from religious to radicalized religious--one individual thought it was funny and likened me being used as a dog toy. I have a lot of experience with religious organizations and I know when people are being self-righteous. It's a no-brainer for me. Regarding the definition of design. I was mainly stunned being a mechanical engineer myself that a group of people that claim to be interested in science could not define design. I feel it would be fair to ask you or anyone else how you would define design. Anyway I would love to talk to you about why you converted from creationism to evolution. Yours truly Jim

Jim said: Hi Matt: I read your post and commented last night. I am sorry that you no longer accept the Biblical account of creation. The barrage of comments last night were difficult in that I am texting off a small cell phone and it is difficult to see the text before I press send. Therefore there are some typos and some difficulties in communication. The session last night ended around 2 o'clock in the morning and I have a few minutes tonight. I run my own mechanical engineering company and I am in the midst of a lot of work so my time is limited. Quite frankly, I have never experienced such large amount of self-righteous ridicule from a group online that went from bad to worse or should I say from religious to radicalized religious--one individual thought it was funny and likened me being used as a dog toy. I have a lot of experience with religious organizations and I know when people are being self-righteous. It's a no-brainer for me. Regarding the definition of design. I was mainly stunned being a mechanical engineer myself that a group of people that claim to be interested in science could not define design. I feel it would be fair to ask you or anyone else how you would define design. Anyway I would love to talk to you about why you converted from creationism to evolution. Yours truly Jim

So, what is it about creationist trolls, that they are always trying to impress us with how busy their lives are, and how they need to type paragraphs of word salad just to let us know that they don't have time to address any topic of importance, but they have all the time in the world to tell us that they are really offended that we've been mean to them?

If I were really that busy, and really that offended, why would I bother doing that? Why would I come back here?

And it seems to be a consistent pattern. Seems strange. Unless Jim is a sock puppet, of course. Or reading from the same creationist play book.

Jim said: Regarding the definition of design. I was mainly stunned being a mechanical engineer myself that a group of people that claim to be interested in science could not define design. I feel it would be fair to ask you or anyone else how you would define design.

Here I'll throw out a standard definition that I'm assuming Jim subscribes to: Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

He's using a circular definition (he says evidence of design proves design, and his evidence of design is just teleology) that assumes a completely undetectable agency behind natural phenomena that's powerless as it makes no predictions. It's turtles all the way down.

beatgroover said: Here I'll throw out a standard definition that I'm assuming Jim subscribes to: Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

Well, yes. But one step at a time. We still don't know how Jim defines "design", other than "A Beautiful Sunset".

Scott F said: We still don't know how Jim defines "design", other than "A Beautiful Sunset".

Clearly, design is ineffable, like the Designer.

But it's obvious. It always is.

Glen Davidson

phhht said: He cannot provide any objective reason at all to think that the "design" he claims to perceive is real.

How does one go about designing a sunset?

Malcolm said: How does one go about designing a sunset?

Jim said: Hi Matt: I read your post and commented last night. I am sorry that you no longer accept the Biblical account of creation.

The barrage of comments last night were difficult in that I am texting off a small cell phone and it is difficult to see the text before I press send. Therefore there are some typos and some difficulties in communication.

The session last night ended around 2 o'clock in the morning and I have a few minutes tonight. I run my own mechanical engineering company and I am in the midst of a lot of work so my time is limited.

Quite frankly, I have never experienced such large amount of self-righteous ridicule from a group online that went from bad to worse or should I say from religious to radicalized religious--one individual thought it was funny and likened me being used as a dog toy.

I have a lot of experience with religious organizations and I know when people are being self-righteous. It's a no-brainer for me.

Regarding the definition of design. I was mainly stunned being a mechanical engineer myself that a group of people that claim to be interested in science could not define design.

I feel it would be fair to ask you or anyone else how you would define design. Anyway I would love to talk to you about why you converted from creationism to evolution. Yours truly Jim

This is why I find creationism so curious. At the very bottom of it, beneath all the misrepresentation and pseudoscience, it's just based on 'gut feeling', teleology, and other uselessly subjective interpretations of the world fueled by presupposed (and unquestionable) assumptions of faith.

— ”beatgroover”

Creationism was once merely an honest belief based on 'gut feeling', teleology, and other uselessly subjective interpretations of the world fueled by presupposed (and unquestionable) assumptions of faith. But has regressed even from that, into full-blown pseudoscience and misrepresentation.

Frank J said: From what I read of David, I don’t think he would have had anything to hide when he was still YEC.

Hi Matt: I read your post and commented last night. I am sorry that you no longer accept the Biblical account of creation.

Keelyn said:

Jim said: I posted a comment tonight for the first time in response to Matt Young story of how he abandoned a belief in the Creation account to the religious belief of evolution. I also challenged those on this site to critically thinking and articulation in regards to that subject and my related story. The only response was condescending ridicule, indignation to very thought of such an idea, self righteous mockery, a chilling dogmatic coldness, amazement that I was not accepting your laws, a reciting of teaching from high priests within your assembly, self-centered in hospitality, and religious judgement. One individual who claimed Evolution was about science actually admitted he did not know what design was. I challenge individuals visiting this site to show a some courage and get serious about critical thinking and articulation instead of hiding behind the priestly robes of your religion. I told the last individual I spoke with that there is nothing more hypocritical than a religious person who denies they are religious while acting ultra religious. My heart goes out to Matt Young and I one day he realizes what has happened in his life.

And by the way, you should "critically" read. It was not Matt Young's story - it was David MacMillan. :)

Any bets Jim's next post will be a "I don't have time for this" flounce?

Like this:

1. Hi, I'm new in town and I'm here to make some friends and learn something!
2. Gee wizz, fossils and genetics and change over time, oh my!
3. Show me the data and prove to me why the quantum framistatic osmosis quotient is exponentially declining in the Saharan Moth Bat mRNA DNA protein plasmosis.
4. Atheists!
5. Praise the Lord!
6. Flounce.

Doc Bill said: Like this: 1. Hi, I'm new in town and I'm here to make some friends and learn something! 2. Gee wizz, fossils and genetics and change over time, oh my! 3. Show me the data and prove to me why the quantum framistatic osmosis quotient is exponentially declining in the Saharan Moth Bat mRNA DNA protein plasmosis. 4. Atheists! 5. Praise the Lord! 6. Flounce.

Doc Bill said: Like this: 1. Hi, I'm new in town and I'm here to make some friends and learn something! 2. Gee wizz, fossils and genetics and change over time, oh my! 3. Show me the data and prove to me why the quantum framistatic osmosis quotient is exponentially declining in the Saharan Moth Bat mRNA DNA protein plasmosis. 4. Atheists! 5. Praise the Lord! 6. Flounce.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

You have to be able to say “Science will never be able to explain it, therefore God.”

I fail to see how "God" follows from an unending failure to explain something. If we never explain "dark energy," should we conclude "God"? Why not Vril? Why not conclude Platonic Forms if abiogenesis isn't explained? Or, dare I ask, "we don't know"? Glen Davidson

Doc Bill said: Like this: 1. Hi, I'm new in town and I'm here to make some friends and learn something! 2. Gee wizz, fossils and genetics and change over time, oh my! 3. Show me the data and prove to me why the quantum framistatic osmosis quotient is exponentially declining in the Saharan Moth Bat mRNA DNA protein plasmosis. 4. Atheists! 5. Praise the Lord! 6. Flounce.

Jim said: Hi Matt: I read your post and commented last night. I am sorry that you no longer accept the Biblical account of creation. The barrage of comments last night were difficult in that I am texting off a small cell phone and it is difficult to see the text before I press send. Therefore there are some typos and some difficulties in communication. The session last night ended around 2 o'clock in the morning and I have a few minutes tonight. I run my own mechanical engineering company and I am in the midst of a lot of work so my time is limited. Quite frankly, I have never experienced such large amount of self-righteous ridicule from a group online that went from bad to worse or should I say from religious to radicalized religious--one individual thought it was funny and likened me being used as a dog toy. I have a lot of experience with religious organizations and I know when people are being self-righteous. It's a no-brainer for me. Regarding the definition of design. I was mainly stunned being a mechanical engineer myself that a group of people that claim to be interested in science could not define design. I feel it would be fair to ask you or anyone else how you would define design. Anyway I would love to talk to you about why you converted from creationism to evolution. Yours truly Jim

harold said:

Matt Young said: I agree with Scott F that PA Poland's royal flush analogy is excellent, and I fully intend to steal it mercilessly, especially if (God forbid!) I ever have to discuss William Dembski's explanatory filter again. The pedant in me has to point out, though, that all flushes are equally likely; the royal flush is the highest flush you can get, not the least probable. But it does not beat 4 aces!

Straight flush beats four of a kind in standard poker hand rankings (royal flush is a type of straight flush). Games that use variant rankings, such as lowball, implicitly refer to the standard ranking. However, when the rules of poker were being developed during the nineteenth century, there was a period when four of a kind was ranked above straight flush, even though four of a kind is more common in the main poker games (Texas or Omaha hold'em, seven stud, five stud, or draw). Some documents suggest that this is because there can never be a tie between two different fours of a kind. In games where each player receives completely individual cards, although not in community card games like hold'em, theoretically two players could tie, each with a different royal flush. There is no suit ranking in poker. It's believed that the popular culture image of "four aces" as a great poker hand may have originated at a time when it WAS considered the best hand, but any straight flush now beats it. However, four aces is still an extremely high ranking hand, and four aces losing to a straight flush would be an extreme "bad beat".

harold said:

Doc Bill said: Like this: 1. Hi, I'm new in town and I'm here to make some friends and learn something! 2. Gee wizz, fossils and genetics and change over time, oh my! 3. Show me the data and prove to me why the quantum framistatic osmosis quotient is exponentially declining in the Saharan Moth Bat mRNA DNA protein plasmosis. 4. Atheists! 5. Praise the Lord! 6. Flounce.

As I said above, I'm not one to use the term "troll" lightly. I don't consider the on-topic creationist regulars "trolls". Heck, I don't even consider "wandrew" to be a "troll". I reserve the term "troll" for someone who seeks only to provoke and disrupt, and who does not make the slightest effort at dialogue. Notice that I'm not being abrasive or irritable here. I have a definition of the term "internet troll", a widely accepted one, and factually, Jim's comments here are troll comments. Now, "Jim" isn't the only troll on the internet. He's not even the worst troll who's ever posted here (yet, of course, he may not be finished). But man, that "Jim" is a troll. He's a troll's troll. He is LONG overdue for the BW. It's a somewhat worthwhile thing to engage with that account to demonstrate the flawed reasoning to others, but I hope everyone sees that he is a mega-troll, many levels of trollery below those who routinely get called "trolls". No possible reply except provoking whines that you have martyred him can be expected from him. He demands a reply, but if you reply to him, you hurt his delicate feelings and martyr him. Rinse and repeat. I wonder if he's a real mechanical engineer? He can certainly ally my suspicion on this account by saying exactly when and where he got his bachelor's of engineering, of course.

I don't care who you are, that there is funny as hell.

Love ya Doc.

wandrewfox? Jim? Hmmm. Well, maybe they feel they are all ready for a seat in the audience of this Ham-Nye stunt debate, after beating all the evilutionists here to little pieces. Hello wandrewfox?! Jim?!

Did anyone count how many posts Jim made? Was it 10?

Oh, wait, Silly Willy doesn't having his "Trolling for Jesus" class any more.

Never mind.

harold said: I reserve the term "troll" for someone who seeks only to provoke and disrupt, and who does not make the slightest effort at dialogue.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

harold said:

Matt Young said: I agree with Scott F that PA Poland's royal flush analogy is excellent, and I fully intend to steal it mercilessly, especially if (God forbid!) I ever have to discuss William Dembski's explanatory filter again. The pedant in me has to point out, though, that all flushes are equally likely; the royal flush is the highest flush you can get, not the least probable. But it does not beat 4 aces!

Straight flush beats four of a kind in standard poker hand rankings (royal flush is a type of straight flush). Games that use variant rankings, such as lowball, implicitly refer to the standard ranking. However, when the rules of poker were being developed during the nineteenth century, there was a period when four of a kind was ranked above straight flush, even though four of a kind is more common in the main poker games (Texas or Omaha hold'em, seven stud, five stud, or draw). Some documents suggest that this is because there can never be a tie between two different fours of a kind. In games where each player receives completely individual cards, although not in community card games like hold'em, theoretically two players could tie, each with a different royal flush. There is no suit ranking in poker. It's believed that the popular culture image of "four aces" as a great poker hand may have originated at a time when it WAS considered the best hand, but any straight flush now beats it. However, four aces is still an extremely high ranking hand, and four aces losing to a straight flush would be an extreme "bad beat".

The odds of that occurring, at least in a Texas Hold'em scenario, is 1 in 2.7 billion. That's why I like to keep the following link handy when the Argument from Really Really Big Numbers AKA Argument from Incredulity comes out. It's worth noting that Dr. Dr. Dembski's explanatory filter AKA look how unlikely "x" could have happened through natural processes therefore god the designer nonsense is based on this. 2008 World Series of Poker Bad Beat 4 Aces vs. Royal Flush Then extrapolate that to the estimated number of galaxies and star systems in the universe or the near infinite number of chemical and thermal processes that have occurred over the history of the planet. Let's face it, our planet's history has been one very very long process that encompasses an endless number of experiments and outcomes in every nook and cranny possible. Given enough opportunities unlikely events occur constantly. Here's a couple more for giggles. Quad Queens vs Quad Nines -- Flush vs. Straight vs. Quads

All this talk of Poker and poker probability makes me wonder if there was ever a case where 2 players both had royal flushes (in a non-community card version)? And if someone says there was, or there must have been, I will of course reply with "How do you know, were you there?".

daoudmbo said: All this talk of Poker and poker probability makes me wonder if there was ever a case where 2 players both had royal flushes (in a non-community card version)? And if someone says there was, or there must have been, I will of course reply with "How do you know, were you there?".

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

harold said: However, four aces is still an extremely high ranking hand, and four aces losing to a straight flush would be an extreme "bad beat".

The odds of that occurring, at least in a Texas Hold'em scenario, is 1 in 2.7 billion.

daoudmbo said: All this talk of Poker and poker probability makes me wonder if there was ever a case where 2 players both had royal flushes (in a non-community card version)? And if someone says there was, or there must have been, I will of course reply with “How do you know, were you there?”.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

harold said: However, four aces is still an extremely high ranking hand, and four aces losing to a straight flush would be an extreme "bad beat".

The odds of that occurring, at least in a Texas Hold'em scenario, is 1 in 2.7 billion.

I should specify here that those odds are for a quad vs. royal flush. There are obviously only 4 possible combinations for a royal and there's 36 possible for a regular straight flush (not including the royals) so the odds go up a bit there.

daoudmbo said: All this talk of Poker and poker probability makes me wonder if there was ever a case where 2 players both had royal flushes (in a non-community card version)? And if someone says there was, or there must have been, I will of course reply with “How do you know, were you there?”.

While I wasn't there I'd give pretty good odds that if it did, someone was shot and killed right after being accused of bein' a low-down-no-good-dirty-rotten-yellow-bellied-side-windin'-sap-suckin' cheat.

harold said:

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said:

harold said: However, four aces is still an extremely high ranking hand, and four aces losing to a straight flush would be an extreme "bad beat".

The odds of that occurring, at least in a Texas Hold'em scenario, is 1 in 2.7 billion.

I should specify here that those odds are for a quad vs. royal flush. There are obviously only 4 possible combinations for a royal and there's 36 possible for a regular straight flush (not including the royals) so the odds go up a bit there.

daoudmbo said: All this talk of Poker and poker probability makes me wonder if there was ever a case where 2 players both had royal flushes (in a non-community card version)? And if someone says there was, or there must have been, I will of course reply with “How do you know, were you there?”.

While I wasn't there I'd give pretty good odds that if it did, someone was shot and killed right after being accused of bein' a low-down-no-good-dirty-rotten-yellow-bellied-side-windin'-sap-suckin' cheat.

When I was living in Albuquerque quite some years ago, actually before internet/television poker, there was a buzz at the Medical examiner's office about an interesting homicide. Apparently, there was a high stakes poker game - I think the actual location may have been Santa Fe. The story is that a player was accused of cheating and said "If you think I'm cheating why don't you shoot me?".

bigdakine said: Filed under the category: "He asked for it"

David MacMillan's article, posted on PT a week or so ago, has just appeared in the Lexington Herald-Leader under the head From creationist to scientist; personal journey reflects debate hurdle for 'science guy'.

I thought modern Literal Creationism arose around the 1910s?

Just Bob said:

bigdakine said: Filed under the category: "He asked for it"

Legend has it that here in Texas in the good ol' days (before any commie big govmint gun control) a justification accepted in court for homicide was, "He needed killin'." That would still fly in some locales.

frankpettit2 said:

Just Bob said:

bigdakine said: Filed under the category: "He asked for it"

Legend has it that here in Texas in the good ol' days (before any commie big govmint gun control) a justification accepted in court for homicide was, "He needed killin'." That would still fly in some locales.

They're called Stand Your Ground laws.

Keelyn said: Let’s call them what they really are – Murder With Impunity laws.

phhht said:

Keelyn said: Let’s call them what they really are – Murder With Impunity laws.

Hear, hear.

Legal definitions of what constitutes reasonable self-defence differ across jurisdictions. Here they are not really a subject of legislation. The common law provides definition. A person who claims self-defence in the case of a homicide will usually be charged and tried, and it will be up to an instructed jury to decide whether the defence is allowed. Juries have accepted a plea of self-defence where the deceased was armed - whether with a less lethal weapon or not - while in the commission of a crime (such as breaking and entering, or even the tort of trespass), and showed aggressive intent. Even if armed and unlawfully on premises, commensurate force only may be used. Even if the robber is running away with your property, you cannot shoot him.

It should be noted, though, that civilian use of firearms in self-defence is very rare, here, and it is also very rare for petty criminals to carry them. Even most "armed robberies" involve knives or similar weapons. Use or carriage of firearms by criminals will greatly increase the sentence, while at the same time ensuring that the police investigation will be thorough.

Did I remark that in this country there is no right to carry arms, and that it is a criminal offence to carry a firearm in a public place?

I don't know of any jurisdiction in the USA that dis not allow a self-defense argument prior to the "stand Your ground" laws. As I understand it, the traditional self-defense argument requires that one attempt to escape before using deadly force -- killing your assailant was the last resort. Under "stand your ground," killing your assailant can be your the first resort.

Ironically, many of the proponents of "stand your ground" claim to be followers of a man -- celebrated in my community as the Prince of Peace -- who said something about turning the other cheek. Who would Jesus shoot?

SWT said: Ironically, many of the proponents of "stand your ground" claim to be followers of a man -- celebrated in my community as the Prince of Peace -- who said something about turning the other cheek. Who would Jesus shoot?

The dead guy would invoke his right to not testify (possibly at the risk of committing contempt of court),