Warm-up for Nye-Ham debate in Kemtucky

Kemtucky, eh?

Some section of the South filled with chemical plants and toxic waste?

Glen Davidson

"Stupid issues of child abuse?" Like letting kids die painfully of preventable diseases by refusing them vaccination? Or refusing them medical care, on account of God guarantees a miracle?

Oh. No. Byers means giving them a basic education in science. Or does he? Maybe he means respecting their Constitutional right not to have religion established in the public schools? That would be "child abuse" in they Byers book.

Distorting mirrors are kinda interesting, until you realise that the Hall of Mirrors Byers is displaying is actually a human mind. A mind on fundamentalism.

Dave Luckett said: the Hall of Mirrors Byers is displaying is actually a human mind. A mind on fundamentalism.

tHis is why evolution fails in intelligent and free nations. Like Canada and America."

Robert Byers said: Did you refrain? Seems like you noted it so much that to add more would add nothing! Anyways There is truth and error indeed. However who decides what is true is not up to the media. They just accurately reflect there is a great contention on these matters. Its a new year and already theres action and more reaction. A good debate may breed a zillion more and demonstrate evolutions losing grip on all classes and identities in North America. I do hope the stupid issues of child abuse is not addressed by Ham/Nye. Its irrelevant. get to the evidence folks.

Robert Byers said: I do hope the stupid issues of child abuse is not addressed by Ham/Nye. Its irrelevant. get to the evidence folks.

beatgroover said: He [Byers] and his fellow nutters must idolize places like Iran - the opposite of intelligent and free nations - where evolution "fails" and creationism prevails. Clearly that is the kind of theocracy they want

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery. The line we came from could be a different gnome anyway however similar we are to chimps they are not the same as human. Humans decided a long time ago they didn’t want to live as the monkeys the chimps and gorillas by destroying the habitat and developing manmade structures both building and culture. That in my mind was not what he wanted to happen, we were supposed to nurture the environment not destroy it. That would be left to the sun to do, millions of years from now if that ever happens.

Marilyn tells us: The line we came from could be a different gnome anyway however similar we are to chimps they are not the same as human.

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery.

Back on the original topic; I don't know of any other warm-ups but this subject could be interesting if they treat it in a mature and nuanced manner. We certainly allow people to do things that are harmful to them and yes even their kids. And AFAIK nobody is insisting that private education or home schooling creationism be made illegal. So in some sense the "its bad for you" isn't the main issue, because even a positive answer doesn't lead to a clear cut social policy decision. The main social policy issues are: "should we be committing shared social resources to teach it (creationism)," and (analagous to 'your freedom to swing your arm stops at my face') "at what point does your miseducation or noneducation start to significantly impact everyone else's safety and prosperity?" [For the record, my answer to the first is a resounding no, but I think the second is actually quite a difficult question to answer. IMO a good case can be made for mainstream medical effectiveness, vaccination info, and skills such as basic literacy and numeracy. But science education...that case is less strong or direct.]

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys

How about a few other important questions:

1) Is lying about the age of the earth harmful to children?

2) Is denying the conclusions of science harmful to children?

3) Is teaching children that science should not be trusted harmful to them?

4) Is lying to children about common descent and hiding the evidence from them harmful to them?

5) Is teaching children to blindly accept myths and fairy tales without question and never trying to investigate to find the real answers to their questions harmful to them?

6) Is teaching children that lying and quote mining and misrepresentation are OK as long as you have a "good" reason harmful to them?

7) Is showing students that you can ignore the Constitution of the United States and break the law without fear of being punished harmful to them?

8( Is showing students that you can substitute your particular religious beliefs for science and ignore all other religious beliefs harmful to them?

air said:

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys

Marilyn, if your mother held hands with her mother and she with her mother and so on, NONE of the people holding hands would be monkeys. Not one. Not ever.

John

I very much appreciate your expertise in taxonomy and have learned a great deal from your posts in the past. I hope you understand that my statement is not to be read as an effort to distort the scientific definition of 'monkey' but rather to speak to an individual with evidently very little understanding of biology.

To many of such individuals, I believe, a 'monkey' means only those creatures that are presently alive on the earth (and,of course, they frequently mix apes in with tail-bearing hairy little banana eaters as elements of this stereotype). My point is that those creatures which are presently alive today and are the foundation of this stereotype are not our direct ancestors, and that is all.

Just thinking what an incredible visual that would be, it has just become an impossible but fervent wish of mine to see an actual slideshow of a "mother holding the hand of her mother holding the hand of her mother etc" going back a million years (or 2 or 3 etc) to actually see every specific step in recent human evolution in an individual living line through eons. Wow, just the thought. How many generations of mothers would that be for, let's say just 100,000 years?

I'm just daydreaming...

I advise reading The Ancestor's Tale if you haven't already. Dawkins' best book by far.

air said: Marilyn, if your mother held hands with her mother and she with her mother and so on, NONE of the people holding hands would be monkeys. Not one. Not ever.

John Harshman said: I advise reading The Ancestor's Tale if you haven't already. Dawkins' best book by far.

air said: ... My point is that those creatures which are presently alive today and are the foundation of this stereotype are not our direct ancestors, and that is all.

air said: John I very much appreciate your expertise in taxonomy and have learned a great deal from your posts in the past. I hope you understand that my statement is not to be read as an effort to distort the scientific definition of 'monkey' but rather to speak to an individual with evidently very little understanding of biology. To many of such individuals, I believe, a 'monkey' means only those creatures that are presently alive on the earth (and,of course, they frequently mix apes in with tail-bearing hairy little banana eaters as elements of this stereotype). My point is that those creatures which are presently alive today and are the foundation of this stereotype are not our direct ancestors, and that is all.

apokryltaros said: If one defines "monkey" as specifically being a tailed simian primate of either Infraorder Platyrrhini, or Superfamily Cercopithicoidea, then yes, technically, our mother from 450,000 generations about would not, technically be a monkey. On the other hand, if we go back to our mother from 900,000 generations, we would be hard pressed to tell her a part from modern-day monkeys.

1. the common ancestor of us and monkeys is a monkey, and
2. we (and all the other apes) are monkeys

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys

and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery.

The line we came from could be a different gnome anyway however similar we are to chimps they are not the same as human.

Humans decided a long time ago they didn’t want to live as the monkeys the chimps and gorillas by destroying the habitat and developing manmade structures both building and culture.

That in my mind was not what he wanted to happen, we were supposed to nurture the environment not destroy it. That would be left to the sun to do, millions of years from now if that ever happens.

DS said: How about a few other important questions: 1) Is lying about the age of the earth harmful to children? 2) Is denying the conclusions of science harmful to children? 3) Is teaching children that science should not be trusted harmful to them? 4) Is lying to children about common descent and hiding the evidence from them harmful to them? 5) Is teaching children to blindly accept myths and fairy tales without question and never trying to investigate to find the real answers to their questions harmful to them? 6) Is teaching children that lying and quote mining and misrepresentation are OK as long as you have a "good" reason harmful to them? 7) Is showing students that you can ignore the Constitution of the United States and break the law without fear of being punished harmful to them? 8( Is showing students that you can substitute your particular religious beliefs for science and ignore all other religious beliefs harmful to them?

harold said: That term refers to extreme physical and psychological abuse of children. I was taken to a Baptist church as a child, and that wasn't child abuse. Dawkins was wrong to use that term. Robert Byers is somewhat wrong to bring this up too, because Bill Nye isn't Dawkins and has never made this argument.

Yes I did mean genome :)

John Harshman said:

air said:

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys

Marilyn, if your mother held hands with her mother and she with her mother and so on, NONE of the people holding hands would be monkeys. Not one. Not ever.

They wouldn't? I'd say they would all be monkeys, right up until the point where they'd be prosimians.

eric said:

air said: Marilyn, if your mother held hands with her mother and she with her mother and so on, NONE of the people holding hands would be monkeys. Not one. Not ever.

Of course not...Micky Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, Peter Tork, and Davy Jones were all men.

Kevin B said:

John Harshman said:

air said:

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys

Marilyn, if your mother held hands with her mother and she with her mother and so on, NONE of the people holding hands would be monkeys. Not one. Not ever.

They wouldn't? I'd say they would all be monkeys, right up until the point where they'd be prosimians.

I thought the rule was "turtles all the way down". Incidentally, I read that there's a petition to get Justin Bieber deported back to Canada. Would there be any mileage in getting up a similar petition for Ken Ham?

diogeneslamp0 said:

harold said: That term refers to extreme physical and psychological abuse of children. I was taken to a Baptist church as a child, and that wasn't child abuse. Dawkins was wrong to use that term. Robert Byers is somewhat wrong to bring this up too, because Bill Nye isn't Dawkins and has never made this argument.

Uh, did you read that chapter in "The God Delusion"? Dawkins never made the argument that taking kids to church or teaching them religion was child abuse. He recounted first-person testimonies of people who'd been taught as kids that they were going to hell, and how it had long-lasting negative effects on them. As it had on me, although not so long-lasting. Let's criticize Dawkins for what he actually said, not for words put in his mouth.

OMG, Marilyn's on to something!

God's pottery plus gnomes could mean only one thing!

Zombie Apocalypse Garden Gnomes!

For that matter, why did the US ever let Ken Ham in?

We didn't have enough creationists? There's a large quota for skilled BSers, people who can't grasp science concepts, and scammers (not saying that Ken doesn't believe his own scam, FWIW)?

Bring us your tired tripe, and your poor excuses...

Glen Davidson

diogeneslamp0 said:

harold said: That term refers to extreme physical and psychological abuse of children. I was taken to a Baptist church as a child, and that wasn't child abuse. Dawkins was wrong to use that term. Robert Byers is somewhat wrong to bring this up too, because Bill Nye isn't Dawkins and has never made this argument.

Uh, did you read that chapter in "The God Delusion"? Dawkins never made the argument that taking kids to church or teaching them religion was child abuse. He recounted first-person testimonies of people who'd been taught as kids that they were going to hell, and how it had long-lasting negative effects on them. As it had on me, although not so long-lasting. Let's criticize Dawkins for what he actually said, not for words put in his mouth.

Sylvilagus said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

harold said: That term refers to extreme physical and psychological abuse of children. I was taken to a Baptist church as a child, and that wasn't child abuse. Dawkins was wrong to use that term. Robert Byers is somewhat wrong to bring this up too, because Bill Nye isn't Dawkins and has never made this argument.

Uh, did you read that chapter in "The God Delusion"? Dawkins never made the argument that taking kids to church or teaching them religion was child abuse. He recounted first-person testimonies of people who'd been taught as kids that they were going to hell, and how it had long-lasting negative effects on them. As it had on me, although not so long-lasting. Let's criticize Dawkins for what he actually said, not for words put in his mouth.

For what it's worth, the passage below is a quote from his website "I am persuaded that the phrase ‘child abuse’ is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell." He refers to such teachings as child abuse several times in the same essay before this passage. I don't believe that Harold claimed he had made the remark in the God Delusion specifically, and I think Harold's post could be read variously. I didn't take it as imputing to. Dawkins a claim that all religious teachings were abuse, a position Dawkins seems not to hold. But dawkins does see some religious teachings as child abuse. I took Harold to be saying that we should not take a mere teaching as abuse, given the legal definitions.

Bill Nye will be debating Ken Ham in a week’s time–inexplicably, on Ham’s home turf, where he controls the terms and the crowd. Nye is either going to get destroyed by Ken Ham or at least grow extremely frustrated with Ham’s tactics. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not (unless I am, but we’ll need to wait and see). Nye seems to think he is walking into a debate of some sort over science, and that presenting the data will, if not prove victorious, at least put a dent into Ham’s armor. It won’t. Nye is strolling into a well-tuned, battle-tested, apologetic war machine.

The ideal opponent, if a debate were unavoidable, would be (1) a theistic evolutionist, who (2) doesn’t lose his/her cool, but (3) isn’t above giving hard punches to the gut, and who (4) knows his/her way around theology, hermeneutics, and the history of Christian thought to expose to a larger crowd [what] is self-evident to most everyone else: Ham is not capable of true debate, and his views are not worth debating to begin with.

diogeneslamp0 said: (Dawkins) recounted first-person testimonies of people who'd been taught as kids that they were going to hell, and how it had long-lasting negative effects on them.

One good question for Ham - "What shape was the Ark?"

From a recent CNN news article (1-27-14) - "The Bible gets its authority from us, who treat it as such, not from it being either the first or the most reliable witness to history."

And, "There are plenty of significant differences between the two Flood stories in the Bible, which are easily spotted if you try to read the narrative as it stands."

"One version says the Flood lasted 40 days; the other says 150. One says the waters came from rain. Another says it came from the opening of primordial floodgates both above and below the Earth. One version says Noah sent out a dove, three times. The other says he sent out a raven, once."

And finally, concerning this newly discovered 4,000 year old Mesopotamian account of the Flood and the Ark, "The newly decoded cuneiform tells of a divinely sent flood and a sole survivor on an ark, who takes all the animals on board to preserve them. It even includes the famous phrase “two by two,” describing how the animals came onto the ark."

"But there is one apparently major difference: The ark in this version is round."

No doubt Ham would wave his hands and explain it all away.

Here is the link:

Noah's Ark discovery raises flood of questions

Opinion by Joel Baden, Special to CNN

January 28th, 2014

Marilyn said: I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery.

Robert Byers said: I don't know if this will break through the lines of communication here BUT i understood Nye said teaching kids creationism was like abuse or something. I'm sure YEC press has said that. In fact I speculate Nye's having the debate because of this comment. I could be all wrong here.

Scott F said:

Marilyn said: I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery.

Hi Marilyn. Saying that we "came from monkeys" is the same as saying that you are descended from your cousins. Evolution does not say that we "came from" monkeys or apes. It's only creationists who say such things.

John Harshman said:

Scott F said:

Marilyn said: I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery.

Hi Marilyn. Saying that we "came from monkeys" is the same as saying that you are descended from your cousins. Evolution does not say that we "came from" monkeys or apes. It's only creationists who say such things.

I get tired of fixing this. Saying that you came from monkeys is the same as saying you came from family members. Saying that we came from monkeys is the same as saying that we came from mammals. Your ancestors are family members. We are mammals. And we are monkeys. The term "monkey", if it means anything at all biologically, refers to a group that includes all descendants of the common ancestor of baboons and howler monkeys. And we are in that group, being more closely related to the baboons than to the howler monkeys. In other words, the problem, if any, lies in "came from" rather than "monkeys".

And we are in that group, being more closely related to the baboons than to the howler monkeys.

Scott F said: ... While I agree with your statement wrt the term "mammals" (for example), I feel that there is a slightly different problem with the term, "monkey", or "ape". Yes, we *are* monkeys. We *are* apes. However, the terms "monkey" and "ape" also happen to refer to specific sets of individual creatures. When the Creationist uses the term "monkey", she is referring to "that monkey right over there", or "that ape in that cage over there". It is a specific creature that they can point to; a particular (if not very specific) species of creature. I think you even make that distinction when you say,

And we are in that group, being more closely related to the baboons than to the howler monkeys.

Would it help if the Creationist said, "I ain't descended from no howler monkey."

Evolution does not say that we “came from” monkeys or apes. It’s only creationists who say such things.

Scott F said:

Robert Byers said: I don't know if this will break through the lines of communication here BUT i understood Nye said teaching kids creationism was like abuse or something. I'm sure YEC press has said that. In fact I speculate Nye's having the debate because of this comment. I could be all wrong here.

Hi Robert. You have "speculated" on this before on the other thread, and I debunked your claim there already. If you have a specific reference to Bill Nye saying these things, please provide it. The only such claim I found was Ken Ham himself mentioning Bill Nye and "child abuse" in the same paragraph, but even Ham did not claim that Nye had said these things. Ham actually attributed the quote to Dawkins (which is correct). Either stop "speculating" about things which you know to be false, or correct me and provide a link to prove me wrong.

Indeed, I tried the link provided by Matt Young in the opening post and the station came in loud and clear. For Europe, find the time here.

I said: This whole mess came about because biologists were trying to reassure the public that they were not saying that people came from monkeys, so they said something that would not stand up to even cursory examination.

Joe, I don't think there's ever been a belief that Old World and New World monkeys form a clade. I do wish people would stop "correcting" creationists on this point. Even Francisco Ayala made this mistake when he wrote a book called Am I a Monkey? and answered himself "no".

John, I have seen some trees where humans split from all (other) apes. I have a poster in my office from the Open University in UK (vintage 1980) that shows that. That would be the basis for the statements that the common ancestor of humans and apes was not an ape.

As for the human/monkey issues, I have not seen a tree that has cercopithecoids and ceboids as a clade, admittedly. But if there were one, it would justify the statement that the common ancestor of humans and monkeys was not a monkey.

I have not seen Francisco Ayala's book -- I wonder how he could possibly justify the statement that the common ancestor of humans and monkeys was not a monkey.

If one defines “monkey” as specifically being a tailed simian primate of either Infraorder Platyrrhini, or Superfamily Cercopithicoidea, then yes, technically, our mother from 450,000 generations about would not, technically be a monkey.

MONKEYS -

We have some direct ancestors whose species is now extinct, but who, if alive today, would be classified as monkeys (and whose fossils are classified as monkeys, if they left any).

However, the modern individual monkeys we see today are NOT our ancestors. They share ancestry, presumably monkey ancestry, with us.

We "came from" "some" monkeys, in a sense, but we did not "come from" the monkeys we see in the biosphere today. They share relatively recent, but still ancient, common ancestry with us.

I also think Richard Dawkins was making a characteristically attention-seeking and deliberately shocking statement when he first claimed that raising children in a religion is “child abuse”.

Uh, did you read that chapter in “The God Delusion”? Dawkins never made the argument that taking kids to church or teaching them religion was child abuse. He recounted first-person testimonies of people who’d been taught as kids that they were going to hell, and how it had long-lasting negative effects on them. As it had on me, although not so long-lasting. Let’s criticize Dawkins for what he actually said, not for words put in his mouth.

I’m NOT just talking about passages from books, Dawkins talks a lot in public. Now, he may have given me the wrong impression, but he’s given that impression to many others. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Richar[…]_child_abuse That quote is poorly sourced but sounds credible. I’d say Dawkins has thrown around enough ambivalent but loaded comments on this score that at a minimum, he should damn well clarify what he means. Furthermore, it’s my subjective impression that the internet is or has been full of long comment threads where Dawkins fan-boys (he doesn’t have many fan-girls, whether that’s fair or not) argue endlessly to defend the claim that “religion is child abuse”, because they also believe that this is what Dawkins says. So if I’m unfairly putting words in his mouth, well, they’re words that his admirers also think are there.

So is it wrong to propose that innocent children, who are born as atheists (= no god), have to be subjected to years of ritualized psychological child abuse to be turned in theists? If it’s not “psychological child abuse” what is it? Sunday School?

prongs said: One good question for Ham - "What shape was the Ark?"

As for Dawkins, I enjoy reading his books which stay strictly within the confines of science like the Ancestor's Tale. I lose interest when he steps out of those confines.

Joe Felsenstein said: John, I have seen some trees where humans split from all (other) apes. I have a poster in my office from the Open University in UK (vintage 1980) that shows that. That would be the basis for the statements that the common ancestor of humans and apes was not an ape.

Scott F said: When the Creationist uses the term “monkey”, she is referring to “that monkey right over there”, or “that ape in that cage over there”. It is a specific creature that they can point to; a particular (if not very specific) species of creature.

Perhaps the whole monkey reference dates back to the Very First Debate when Bishop Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or grandmother that he was descended from a monkey.

Creationist: "We didn't come from monkeys"

Translation: "There is a fundamental non-ad-hoc difference between the biology of human beings and the biology of all other living things."

Man is the only animal that [insert favored feature, and be prepared to replace frequently as new research discovers it in another species].

John Harshman said: Man is the only animal that [insert...].

That takes a list of features, not just one. If the listed combination turns out to be duplicated somewhere, then add more features to the list. ;)

John Harshman said: ... I don't think that's true. She's most likely referring to a morphotype, and a vague one at that. When creationist deny coming from monkeys they mean that humans were created de novo in their present form and have no monkey-like ancestors. The proper response is not to say that this is a misconception of what science says; it's to inform them that they do indeed come from (or are) monkeys. And they'll see the first response as dodging the challenge.

John Harshman said:

Scott F said: When the Creationist uses the term “monkey”, she is referring to “that monkey right over there”, or “that ape in that cage over there”. It is a specific creature that they can point to; a particular (if not very specific) species of creature.

I don't think that's true. She's most likely referring to a morphotype, and a vague one at that. When creationist deny coming from monkeys they mean that humans were created de novo in their present form and have no monkey-like ancestors. The proper response is not to say that this is a misconception of what science says; it's to inform them that they do indeed come from (or are) monkeys. And they'll see the first response as dodging the challenge.

Well &%$!.

My kid watches Curious George every day, and everyone on that show, even the narrator and commercials, calls the chimp a monkey. I taught my kid ignore what TV says, monkeys have tails, and CG was an ape because he had no tail.

And you know what? I'm not taking it back. "Monkey" as far as I'm concerned is paraphyletic.

Harshman has said that in order for "monkey" to mean something in biology, it must be a clade. Well no, physical descriptions also mean something in biology, even if they're paraphyletic.

I have no problem with biological terms having two definitions, one by structure and one by descent, with the distinction being clear in context. So human beings are not fish, if "fish" is defined by structure, and they are fish, if "fish" is defined by descent. Yes, I know the first definition is paraphyletic and the second one is not. So what?

Diogenes,

I can see that you're a good little monkey and always very curious.

What would you say to the Creationist who says, “If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

If you are descended from your grandparents, why are your cousins still alive? And your grandparents?

If you are descended from Englishmen, why are there still Englishmen?

If you are descended from a monkey, why would that mean that there should be no more monkeys?

You may now hear the "extended interview" here.

I said monkey because the chimp is said to have 98.8% same DNA as human but doesn't look anything like human but it is said we evolved from them. I understand better now it's not the modern monkey that is being referred to, but getting nearer to the Neandertal, has the Neandertal the same DNA percentage. It's not unusual to say a being came from another as it is said that Eve came from Adam, that wasn't evolution that was substance from substance. If a being came from another that is quite possible and it would keep to kind. I wonder why it is said that human came from monkey and not the other way round, is it because He made the animals first before human, I'm thinking aloud.

Hopefully the word of God would not be used to torment a child that is why a church leader should really know what he is taking on before proceeding, and point to the love of God that saves from, the err.

If we came from Neandertal why aren't there any now..

I said monkey because the chimp is said to have 98.8% same DNA as human but doesn’t look anything like human but it is said we evolved from them.

I understand better now it’s not the modern monkey that is being referred to, but getting nearer to the Neandertal, has the Neandertal the same DNA percentage.

It’s not unusual to say a being came from another as it is said that Eve came from Adam, that wasn’t evolution that was substance from substance. If a being came from another that is quite possible and it would keep to kind. I wonder why it is said that human came from monkey and not the other way round, is it because He made the animals first before human, I’m thinking aloud.

Marilyn said: If we came from Neandertal why aren't there any now..

Do you mean we didn't come from Neandertal or that they are still here, not meaning we carry their genes.

if we came from Neandertal...

ngcart2011 said:

if we came from Neandertal...

and here I was blissfully thinking there couldn't be a stupider creationist argument than, "If we came from monkeys..."

diogeneslamp0 said:

ngcart2011 said:

if we came from Neandertal...

and here I was blissfully thinking there couldn't be a stupider creationist argument than, "If we came from monkeys..."

OK OK, tone it down. Marilyn, Neanderthals may have just been a separate subspecies of human. Homo sapiens sapiens interbred with them in Europe so Caucasians have a small fraction of Neanderthal genes.

Just tossing this up for interest since we're on the subject of human/Neanderthal hybridization. Some interesting results talked about in the abstract but the full text is behind a paywall.

W. H. Heydt said: What I've always wanted to reply with to the "but why are there still X..?" is, "My ancestry is from Europe. Why are there still Europeans?"

diogeneslamp0 said: If women came from ribs, why are there still ribs? If Christianity evolved from Judaism, why are there still Jews?

harold said:

I said monkey because the chimp is said to have 98.8% same DNA as human but doesn’t look anything like human but it is said we evolved from them.

1) They obviously look much more like humans than almost anything else on earth. 2) No-one EVER says we evolved from modern chimpanzees.

Marilyn said: If we came from Neandertal why aren't there any now..

diogeneslamp0 says: And my favorite: scientists say rain comes from clouds. Then why are there still clouds?

Marilyn said: Hopefully the word of God would not be used to torment a child that is why a church leader should really know what he is taking on before proceeding, and point to the love of God that saves from, the err.

Scott F said: Hey… I was taught early on (very early) that men had one fewer ribs that women. (That didn't last long, but the notion was seriously floated.)

eric said:

Scott F said: Hey… I was taught early on (very early) that men had one fewer ribs that women. (That didn't last long, but the notion was seriously floated.)

I think this is actually a fairly common belief (at least amongst laymen Christians). While it's something you can check relatively easily, it's not the sort of claim people do check, if only because its so trivial it doesn't seem worth the effort.

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

eric said:

Scott F said: Hey… I was taught early on (very early) that men had one fewer ribs that women. (That didn't last long, but the notion was seriously floated.)

I think this is actually a fairly common belief (at least amongst laymen Christians). While it's something you can check relatively easily, it's not the sort of claim people do check, if only because its so trivial it doesn't seem worth the effort.

I disagree. I see a lot of value in spending time counting women's ribs.

Scott F said:

harold said:

I said monkey because the chimp is said to have 98.8% same DNA as human but doesn’t look anything like human but it is said we evolved from them.

1) They obviously look much more like humans than almost anything else on earth. 2) No-one EVER says we evolved from modern chimpanzees.

I think the two of you just made my point.

I think it is right to teach children their present identity of being human first before you start telling them they came from monkeys and that we were not developed uniquely by God’s own pottery.

— Marilyn

The line we came from could be a different gnome anyway however similar we are to chimps they are not the same as human.

— Marilyn

The Bishop rose, and in a light scoffing tone, florid and he assured us there was nothing in the idea of evolution; rock-pigeons were what rock-pigeons had always been. Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey? On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words — words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous. One lady fainted and had to carried out: I, for one, jumped out of my seat; and when in the evening we met at Dr Daubeney's, every one was eager to congratulate the hero of the day.

The meeting was so large that they had adjourned to the Library which was crammed with between 700 + 1000 people, for all the world was there to hear Sam Oxon— Well Sam Oxon got up & spouted for half an hour with inimitable spirit ugliness + emptiness + unfairness, I saw he was coached up by Owen + knew nothing + he said not a syllable but what was in the Reviews— he ridiculed you badly + Huxley savagely— Huxley answered admirably + turned the tables, but he could not throw his voice over so large an assembly, nor command the audience; + he did not allude to Sam's weak points nor put the matter in a form or way that carried the audience.

The battle waxed hot. Lady Brewster fainted, the excitement increased as others spoke—my blood boiled, I felt myself a dastard; now I saw my advantage—I swore to myself I would smite that Amalekite Sam hip + thigh if my heart jumped out of my mouth + I handed my name up to the President (Henslow) as ready to throw down the gauntlet— I must tell you that Henslow as president would have none speak but those who had arguments to use, + 4 persons had been burked by the audience + President for mere declamation: it moreover became necessary for each speaker to mount the platform + so there I was cocked up with Sam at my right elbow, + there + then I smashed him amid rounds of aplause— I hit him in the wind at the first shot in 10 words taken from his own ugly mouth— + then proceeded to demonstrate in as few more 1 that he could never have read your book + 2 that he was absolutely ignorant of the rudiments of Bot. Science— I said a few more on the subject of my own experience, + conversion + wound up with a very few observations on the relative position of the old + new hypotheses, + with some words of caution to the audience— Sam was shut up—had not one word to say in reply + the meeting was dissolved forthwith leaving you master of the field after 4 hours battle. Huxley who had borne all the previous brunt of the battle + who never before (thank God) praised me to my face, told me it was splendid, + that he did not know before what stuff I was made of— I have been congratulated + thanked by the blackest coats + whitest stocks in Oxford (for they hate their Bishop quite [section illeg] love) + plenty of ladies too have flattered me—but eheu + alas never is.

The scripture that comes to mind is 2 Corinthians ch 5 vs 17 that to me seems to explain the situation "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (*creature, in some translations*) the old has passed away, behold the new has come.

Interesting. Here we see the Bible itself saying that there can be a new creature, not made in the first six days of creation, and that it displaces an old form. That must be read literally, like everything in scripture, of course.

Sounds evolutionary to me.

For crying out loud, Marilyn. That verse is saying that when you convert to Christianity you become a different person. It has nothing to do with evolution. I mean, I guess if you really try hard you can take that verse to mean that if you become Christian you are a new creation unrelated to other animals like monkeys, but that would also mean that you suddenly don't have parents or grandparents either.

We *did* descend from monkeys. This is one of the few things Creationists say about evolutionary theory that is correct. And I don’t believe there has ever been a time when biologists have thought that the human branch of the evolutionary tree didn’t hang off the monkey branch.

— Chris Lawson

Hooker carried the day by being extremely aggressive and mounting a rhetorical assault on Sam Oxon’s integrity. He did this more aggressively than the famously aggressive Huxley. I find it hard to imagine Bill Nye having even a pinch of the belly-fire necessary to bring the fight to Ken Ham.

Chris Lawson said: For crying out loud, Marilyn. That verse is saying that when you convert to Christianity you become a different person. It has nothing to do with evolution. I mean, I guess if you really try hard you can take that verse to mean that if you become Christian you are a new creation unrelated to other animals like monkeys, but that would also mean that you suddenly don't have parents or grandparents either.

harold,

I hope you're right, but I can't say I agree. Firstly, while Ken Ham may be a bit of a minor celebrity, he's still a celebrity; even worse, Bill Nye is a genuine celebrity -- I mean, not nearly on the Brad Pitt/Lady Gaga level of fame, but still widely known -- and the very fact that he has decided to join this debate means that there will almost certainly be a lot of coverage of the event. Certainly a lot more than if, say, Ken Ham was debating a local U Kentucky lecturer in evolutionary theory. And this story is going to travel a lot further than the borders of Kentucky.

Secondly, Ken Ham has been very successful in pushing the creationist agenda. Has he got it into public schools? No, because there are tested constitutional barriers to that. (Interestingly it is AiG's official position that creationism should not be taught in public schools, which makes them -- shockingly -- more responsible than the Discovery Institute.) But he has managed to siphon millions of dollars out of the state for his Ark Park venture and he has been very successful in pushing creationism in private Christian colleges (which still manage to gouge out tax funding) and home schooling.

Thirdly, I think this debate needs to be an absolute public humiliation for Ham or it will be presented as a victory for creationism. Even a break-even will feed the "teach the controversy" people. They will argue that if there was no controversy, how come there was a debate? (An example from another field: after years of complaining about mercury in vaccines despite a complete lack of understanding about the evidence, anti-vaxxers eventually extorted the CDC into removing mercury from all childhood vaccines; the anti-vaxxers then used this as proof that the mercury in vaccines was harmful after all because otherwise why would the CDC remove it? And then they continued their anti-vax stand after the mercury was removed anyway.) The only way for this not to happen is for Ham to be so utterly exposed to ridicule (not necessarily by Nye himself) that even creationists don't want to bring it up. Will this single event convert anyone to Creationism? Possibly not. But in the current climate, it will feed the forces that want to push creationism into schools.

Fourthly, if Nye takes the Biologos line, then I think he's already lost the debate (rhetorically speaking, not scientifically).

Mind you, I certainly agree that this is not a Kentucky issue other than that KY's the home of Ham, AiG, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Park. Although I have never been to Kentucky, I see no reason to think its educational problems are any worse than other underfunded states. I presume that you also think like me that the best way to deal with the problem of creationism is to fund excellent education and attract energetic, engaging, well-educated people into teaching careers. I'd rather Bill Nye campaign for education resourcing than debate Ken Ham. It's his choice, of course, but I think he's made a poor decision.

Rolf,

I'm not sure that our interpretations are all that different, but I bet we both agree that the verse has nothing to do with whether converted Christians are descended from monkeys.

The debate is already getting some pretty significant media coverage on NBC News

Chris Lawson said: harold, I hope you're right, but I can't say I agree. Firstly, while Ken Ham may be a bit of a minor celebrity, he's still a celebrity; even worse, Bill Nye is a genuine celebrity -- I mean, not nearly on the Brad Pitt/Lady Gaga level of fame, but still widely known -- and the very fact that he has decided to join this debate means that there will almost certainly be a lot of coverage of the event. Certainly a lot more than if, say, Ken Ham was debating a local U Kentucky lecturer in evolutionary theory. And this story is going to travel a lot further than the borders of Kentucky. Secondly, Ken Ham has been very successful in pushing the creationist agenda. Has he got it into public schools? No, because there are tested constitutional barriers to that. (Interestingly it is AiG's official position that creationism should not be taught in public schools, which makes them -- shockingly -- more responsible than the Discovery Institute.) But he has managed to siphon millions of dollars out of the state for his Ark Park venture and he has been very successful in pushing creationism in private Christian colleges (which still manage to gouge out tax funding) and home schooling. Thirdly, I think this debate needs to be an absolute public humiliation for Ham or it will be presented as a victory for creationism. Even a break-even will feed the "teach the controversy" people. They will argue that if there was no controversy, how come there was a debate? (An example from another field: after years of complaining about mercury in vaccines despite a complete lack of understanding about the evidence, anti-vaxxers eventually extorted the CDC into removing mercury from all childhood vaccines; the anti-vaxxers then used this as proof that the mercury in vaccines was harmful after all because otherwise why would the CDC remove it? And then they continued their anti-vax stand after the mercury was removed anyway.) The only way for this not to happen is for Ham to be so utterly exposed to ridicule (not necessarily by Nye himself) that even creationists don't want to bring it up. Will this single event convert anyone to Creationism? Possibly not. But in the current climate, it will feed the forces that want to push creationism into schools. Fourthly, if Nye takes the Biologos line, then I think he's already lost the debate (rhetorically speaking, not scientifically). Mind you, I certainly agree that this is not a Kentucky issue other than that KY's the home of Ham, AiG, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Park. Although I have never been to Kentucky, I see no reason to think its educational problems are any worse than other underfunded states. I presume that you also think like me that the best way to deal with the problem of creationism is to fund excellent education and attract energetic, engaging, well-educated people into teaching careers. I'd rather Bill Nye campaign for education resourcing than debate Ken Ham. It's his choice, of course, but I think he's made a poor decision.

Karen S. said: The debate is already getting some pretty significant media coverage on NBC News

(Interestingly it is AiG’s official position that creationism should not be taught in public schools, which makes them – shockingly – more responsible than the Discovery Institute.)

From the NBC website:

NBCNews.com and MSNBC.com will offer live video coverage of the debate from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., beginning at 7 p.m. ET Tuesday. NBC News Digital science editor Alan Boyle will be on the scene.

DS said: From the NBC website: NBCNews.com and MSNBC.com will offer live video coverage of the debate from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., beginning at 7 p.m. ET Tuesday. NBC News Digital science editor Alan Boyle will be on the scene.

Well at least if there is media coverage, AIG won't be able to edit the video and hide the inconvenient parts. At least i hope that will become impossible. It should also mean that they can't market their version of the event, since copies will presumably be available from other sources. It should also make it more difficult for them to have blatantly biased rules or format. That wouldn't look good at all. So maybe things won't be quite as bad as they could have been. Still, these people are so dishonest and to unethical, I don't trust them not to at least try to pull something completely nefarious. Let's just hope that any such attempts backfire big time.

DS said: Well at least if there is media coverage, AIG won't be able to edit the video and hide the inconvenient parts. At least i hope that will become impossible. It should also mean that they can't market their version of the event, since copies will presumably be available from other sources. It should also make it more difficult for them to have blatantly biased rules or format. That wouldn't look good at all. So maybe things won't be quite as bad as they could have been. Still, these people are so dishonest and to unethical, I don't trust them not to at least try to pull something completely nefarious. Let's just hope that any such attempts backfire big time.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Kemtucky, eh? Some section of the South filled with chemical plants and toxic waste? Glen Davidson

Harold said: "...I think all of this is harmful. I also think Richard Dawkins was making a characteristically attention-seeking and deliberately shocking statement when he first claimed that raising children in a religion is “child abuse”. (Obviously, you haven’t done this, buy you’re replying to Robert Byers, and he was referencing that Dawkins comment.) It’s like a libertarian billionaire claiming that giving poor children a lunch at school is “theft” from him. “Child abuse” and “theft” are words with meanings in the legal system. When you accuse someone of “theft” you’re strongly implying that they should be prosecuted for larceny. And when you accuse someone of child abuse, you’re not just saying that they are imperfect parents. You’re saying that the children should be taken from them and placed in foster care, and that they should be prosecuted for a felony. That term refers to extreme physical and psychological abuse of children. I was taken to a Baptist church as a child, and that wasn’t child abuse. Dawkins was wrong to use that term. Robert Byers is somewhat wrong to bring this up too, because Bill Nye isn’t Dawkins and has never made this argument. Of course science denial is harmful to children (and adults), but Byers is sort of half right here - direct accusations of “child abuse” are not called for. ...

I think harold has it exactly right this time, except that I think far, far less than 5% of Americans will even be aware of the debate. Even if Nye completely botches things (unlikely, in my opinion), and AIG claims victory - so what? They are going to do that no matter what. It's entertainment, a bit of fluff, with the net effect on public opinion or popular culture, zero.

IMNSHO, oral debates test the debating skills of the participants, not the accuracy of the claims (especially when the claims are generalizations).

To test accuracy of a generalization, one needs comprehensive descriptions of patterns of evidence that are expected to be consistently observed if that generalization is true (or even just a useful approximation).

And that requires time to research stuff, and for that a close deadline is counterproductive.

harold said: I'll quantify that second prediction. I predict that the debate will be watched by less than 5% of the US population (approximately 15 to 20 million viewers or fewer).

An article about the Nye debate via the Lexington Herald Leader website.

Of course, Lexington is only about an hour south of the Creation Museum, so not too surprising the comments section of the article is somewhat heated.

Here's some perspective.

In 1849, Samuel Birley Robowtham of England became the Henry Morris/John Witcomb of flat-earthism when Robowtham published Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe. Just like "The Genesis Flood" did in 1961 for YECism (which also of course includes a world Flood), Robowtham's book launched the so-called modern flat-earth movement. For nearly half a century after 1849, Robowtham and his fellow flat-earthers often successfully debated mainstream heleocentric scientists. For example, in March of 1887 during a debate in Brockport NY, flat-earther M C Flanders whipped his heleocentric opponent so badly, all five townspeople that had been picked to judge the debate decided that the earth was flat!

Goes to show what the power of forensics can have, regardless of the science.

The ICR had similar success during the 1970s with the likes of Morris and Duane Gish doing the "Gish Gallop", often emerging triumphant against scientists lacking debating skills. It wasn't until the likes of biologist Ken Saladin and Brown Univ biologist Ken Miller started to whip creationist debators that the tide finally turned.

Time may tell whether Bill Nye will have the success of Ken Miller or not.

DS said: Well at least if there is media coverage, AIG won't be able to edit the video and hide the inconvenient parts. At least i hope that will become impossible. It should also mean that they can't market their version of the event, since copies will presumably be available from other sources. It should also make it more difficult for them to have blatantly biased rules or format. That wouldn't look good at all. So maybe things won't be quite as bad as they could have been. Still, these people are so dishonest and to unethical, I don't trust them not to at least try to pull something completely nefarious. Let's just hope that any such attempts backfire big time.

Roger Lambert said:

Harold said: "...I think all of this is harmful. I also think Richard Dawkins was making a characteristically attention-seeking and deliberately shocking statement when he first claimed that raising children in a religion is “child abuse”. (Obviously, you haven’t done this, buy you’re replying to Robert Byers, and he was referencing that Dawkins comment.) It’s like a libertarian billionaire claiming that giving poor children a lunch at school is “theft” from him. “Child abuse” and “theft” are words with meanings in the legal system. When you accuse someone of “theft” you’re strongly implying that they should be prosecuted for larceny. And when you accuse someone of child abuse, you’re not just saying that they are imperfect parents. You’re saying that the children should be taken from them and placed in foster care, and that they should be prosecuted for a felony. That term refers to extreme physical and psychological abuse of children. I was taken to a Baptist church as a child, and that wasn’t child abuse. Dawkins was wrong to use that term. Robert Byers is somewhat wrong to bring this up too, because Bill Nye isn’t Dawkins and has never made this argument. Of course science denial is harmful to children (and adults), but Byers is sort of half right here - direct accusations of “child abuse” are not called for. ...

Child abuse is a word that also has meaning outside of the justice system. And it is a word whose meaning within the criminal justice system has changed in the last few decades. Harshly spanking one's child used to be a parent's perogative; a parent can now lose custody of their child to the state for this action in some places. And the idea that religious inculcation is abusive and/or not appropriate for youngsters is not dismissed out of hand around the globe. There is (and my google fu is weak), I believe, at least one Scandinavian country where religious training is not appropriate before the age of fifteen. One might make a strong argument that religious inculcation is brainwashing against the defenseless, as inappropriate for the undeveloped mind as, say, viewing pornography or graphic violence. It invites and often produces a lifetime of needless fear, guilt, and shame. It subverts the cogent development of rational thinking. Whether religious inculcation is abusive to children and whether it should be seen as child abuse is a discussion worth having, and bound to be very interesting indeed. It is also, I would argue, a legitimate and frankly ingenious political position to assert, a new meme(?) sure to cause a great gnashing of teeth and movement of the Overton window. I don't think Dawkins was wrong to speak of this, I think he was savvy and courageous to do so.

Whether religious inculcation is abusive to children and whether it should be seen as child abuse is a discussion worth having

113 comments and no one has bothered to listen to the radio show (it is available at the WEKU "Eastern Standard" website).

harold said: I wish you had read the prior comments more carefully..

Thus, an American need not understand economics to challenge Keynes, nor possess a PhD to question climate change, nor to have read Darwin to declare his entire book a fraud. One need not read journals, for Gladwell suffices, and Jenny McCarthy’s personal anecdotes trump the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences.

OK, I found the radio program and listened to it. I tried to find the streaming performance when it aired but couldn't get a link, just NPR stuff.

Anyway.

One word summary: Meh.

Look, in venues like this you have to let the creationist, Mortenson in this case, talk, then pick him apart. I grew weary of Dan jumping into the conversation and talking all over Mortenson. Yes, I realize it's frustrating listening to a lying sack of shit like Morty blab on, but you have to cool your jets, then take your shots.

Second, one can safely ignore most of what a creationist says and hammer on their authority and legitimacy. If nothing else, these guys are authoritarians. Hambo says that up front in his discussion about creationist "critical thinking." Identify your authority then ensure the authority is Biblically based, says Hambo. One has to attack that by saying that real Science doesn't depend on authority. Anybody can do it.

Third, one has to attack the false dichotomy of "operational versus historical" science as being totally false and a fabrication by creationists. If nothing else, creationists always get flummoxed by telling them that everything is in the past or the future; the present is only a boundary between the two. So, all science is "historical" science in that regard. Totally wipes out their brains.

Fourth, if one wants to get specific then attack the Flood as impossible from many standpoints. There are only a few comebacks creationists have regarding things like "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and you can toss out big numbers like being "600 million cubic miles short of water" and also parry objections like the Earth being smaller, smoother, etc. All easily potted with a few sound bites.

Fifth, as for scientific luminaries supporting creationism, again there are only a few used in arguments - Newton, Lyell, Hoyle and so forth and a devastating comeback is to simply laugh and say "who cares what they said." Tit for tat while an effective strategy in a fair debate doesn't work here, but dismissive laughter does. Pull a Reagan, "There you go again, Terry, making up stuff." The creationist can only splutter in response.

On the positive side for the theory of evolution I think an opportunity was missed to lay out in a sentence or two that evolution is supported by every line of science: biochemistry, population genetics, geology, physics, and so on. The "weaknesses" that creationists point are almost all to do with gaps in knowledge - the theory hasn't demonstrated this point or that point. But that's not a weakness, that's simply an area of research however creationism has never demonstrated ANY point, then simply say " not true" to any subsequent creationist objection.

Finally, I think Dan missed an opportunity to articulate the major criticism of creationism (in my view), that it is inherently dishonest. Guys like Lisle who used to work for AIG, now at ICR, has said that he "performed" secular science to get his PhD but he didn't "believe" what he was doing. That's dishonest. All creationists are dishonest and it's a point that is not often made, I think, because secularists, to use the term broadly, are by their nature fair and polite. Dawkins gets criticized because he simply tells it like it is and takes no truck from creationists.

So, "meh" is my review. Not a great discussion, not a terrible one, either. At least the callers were mostly supportive. One final point on that. As Dan correctly pointed out science is very, very complicated. The last caller illustrated this point by commenting that she read where Hawking said he was wrong about black holes. Well, not quite. Hawking said he may have been wrong about the nature of the event horizon and how quantum (paging Deepak Chopra to the house courtesy phone) effects may make it less sharp. It's a very detailed and complicated subject and yet the caller took it to mean Hawking was announcing he was wrong about black holes, thus leading one to doubt the theory of evolution. The final caller provided a perfect example of why we need stronger science education.

So this is fantastic.

Answers for Teachers!

"No, we don't support the teaching of creationism in schools...but we'll totally host a conference specifically designed to get teachers to defend creationism!"

Scott F said: Salon has a thoughtful article on the "debate" (they think it's a bad idea) and on Creationism in general. Their position seems to be that Creationism is actually a political agenda imposed on Protestantism as a reactionary response to the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, which depends for it's persistence on ignorance, distrust of "experts", denial of science, and the intentional dumbing down of all complex ideas, including theological ideas, to "the absurdly simple".

Thus, an American need not understand economics to challenge Keynes, nor possess a PhD to question climate change, nor to have read Darwin to declare his entire book a fraud. One need not read journals, for Gladwell suffices, and Jenny McCarthy’s personal anecdotes trump the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences.

Guys like Lisle who used to work for AIG, now at ICR, has said that he “performed” secular science to get his PhD but he didn’t “believe” what he was doing. That’s dishonest.

harold said: I'll quantify that second prediction. I predict that the debate will be watched by less than 5% of the US population (approximately 15 to 20 million viewers or fewer).

Well the Super Bowl typically gets over one hundred million viewers, just about one third of the US population. So yea, I guess 5% would be a moral victory, or rather an immoral victory in this case. I'm hoping for less than 1%. But football is still more popular than jesus (or the Beatles).

Scott F said:

Marilyn said: If we came from Neandertal why aren't there any now..

I am not a biologist (or anthropologist), but if you think of "monkeys" and "humans" as umpteenth cousins many times removed (all descended from a common umpteenth-great grand parent, I imagine Neandertals as our great, great, umpty-great uncle's family, the ones who died in the great famine of '06 a long long time ago. Our family and their family are very distantly related, but their simple wooden spear couldn't feed their family, while our family survived because we had a better plow and a better bow-and-arrow. It's a vague and hand-wavy analogy, but it feels reasonable.

Marilyn said:

Scott F said:

Marilyn said: If we came from Neandertal why aren't there any now..

I am not a biologist (or anthropologist), but if you think of "monkeys" and "humans" as umpteenth cousins many times removed (all descended from a common umpteenth-great grand parent, I imagine Neandertals as our great, great, umpty-great uncle's family, the ones who died in the great famine of '06 a long long time ago. Our family and their family are very distantly related, but their simple wooden spear couldn't feed their family, while our family survived because we had a better plow and a better bow-and-arrow. It's a vague and hand-wavy analogy, but it feels reasonable.

Hopefully now I understand better. From your explanation Humans didn't come from Neandertal, but due to a split millenia previous they were different, they lived at the same time side by side with human, though they kept to their own kind on occasions they happened to have relationships, possibly not even knowing they were different, but possibly did. But that's not evolution, that is an explanation of how their genes came to be found in human. For whatever reason their species wasn't to prevail over human.

Splendid editorial cartoon by Joel Pett here, courtesy of Dan Phelps. I have no doubt that Mr. Nye will feel a bit like the guy on the left. I cannot speculate what Mr. Ham will feel like, but if he rides away on a (nonavian) dinosaur we should concede the debate.

Here is a brand-new overview of what will be happening re the debate. As of Saturday, 750K people had registered for stream at debatelive, according to an acquaintance who did so (he was immediately pummeled with spam emails from AiG). I also estimate less than 1% of US, which will make it an exceedingly tiny percentage of the world population, will watch.

http://www.charismanews.com/us/42646-science-guys-set-for-global-audience-during-evolution-creation-debate

In case anyone balks at giving hits to a place called 'charismnews' (sorry, I didn't notice that), more info is available here:
http://www.wcpo.com/news/region-northern-kentucky/evolutionist-bill-nye-and-creationist-ken-ham-to-host-debate-at-creation-museum-in-kentucky

Museum officials believe the actual number will be much higher than the projected total, especially after Wednesday, Feb. 19 when C-Span re-broadcasts the event on radio and TV at 8 p.m. ET. Immediately following the conclusion of the live debate, Nye and Ham will walk inside the Creation Museum next door to be interviewed for the "Piers Morgan Live" program on CNN for a 9:45 p.m. post-debate analysis. During the 10 p.m. hour and inside the museum, MSNBC TV will conduct a one-on-one interview Nye. For the debate, more than 70 credentialed members of the media will converge upon Northern Kentucky. Journalists from news outlets such ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, Scientific American magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, Al Jazeera America, The New Yorker, WCPO will be in attendance.

usenettroll215 said: HEY, YOUNG, JOHN THE ANTI-THRINAXODON DICK HARSHMAN AND SCOTT F, HUMANS HAVE ORIGINS IN THE DEVONIAN! BTW, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN how I FOUND 3,000 HUMAN FOSSILS FROM DEVONIAN STRATA, AND THEY WERE TESTED AT HARVARD TO BE 100% HUMAN, AND 395 Ma!

Personally, coming from a lot of Northern European–especially Scandinavian–ancestors, I’m proud to have Neanderthals lurking back there. Those guys were real bad weather survivors. It may even be that the combination of milder weather and interbeeding aided the modern humans in displacing the Neanderthals.

Matt Young said: Many thanks for the link! The WCPO website notes that you may watch the debate at WCPO.com ...

I really think the National Ice Core Lab would be the perfect venue to hold any debate with Ham. He could be shown a core sample with many thousands of annual rings, and asked to explain why there are more than six thousand. The tap-dancing alone would be worth it.

Karen S. said: I really think the National Ice Core Lab would be the perfect venue to hold any debate with Ham. He could be shown a core sample with many thousands of annual rings, and asked to explain why there are more than six thousand. The tap-dancing alone would be worth it.

Matt Young said: Many thanks for the link! The WCPO website notes that you may watch the debate at WCPO.com and adds,

Museum officials believe the actual number will be much higher than the projected total, especially after Wednesday, Feb. 19 when C-Span re-broadcasts the event on radio and TV at 8 p.m. ET. Immediately following the conclusion of the live debate, Nye and Ham will walk inside the Creation Museum next door to be interviewed for the "Piers Morgan Live" program on CNN for a 9:45 p.m. post-debate analysis. During the 10 p.m. hour and inside the museum, MSNBC TV will conduct a one-on-one interview Nye. For the debate, more than 70 credentialed members of the media will converge upon Northern Kentucky. Journalists from news outlets such ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, Scientific American magazine, the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, Al Jazeera America, The New Yorker, WCPO will be in attendance.

This affair may turn out to be a bigger deal than some are predicting.

Bullfrog DNA!

Nye needs a cheat sheet of Ham stupidisms. Wasn't Ham the Bullfrog guy? Ham will surely try to change the subject immediately, then go to the Gish Gallop. Instead of playing his game, Nye should counterattack!

The real question is whether or not Ham will get the money he needs to save his latest fiasco. If he generates enough publicity and gets enough believers to donate in time, he might still pull it off. If not, he should accept the message from god that he shouldn't be pulling stunts like this. Now what are the odds of that happening?

I believe I heard Lawrence O'Donnell say that Bill Nye will be interviewed on his program on MSNBC at 10pm after the debate.

I believe he also said that the debate would be streamed on msnbc.com, but I could be mistaken about that.

KlausH said: Nye needs a cheat sheet of Ham stupidisms. Wasn't Ham the Bullfrog guy? Ham will surely try to change the subject immediately, then go to the Gish Gallop. Instead of playing his game, Nye should counterattack!

Woe is me, the end is Nye!

You may watch the debate here on NBC or here on WCPO, Cincinnati.

Then, Piers Morgan at 9:45 EST, and MSNBC during the 10:00 hour, EST.

I will run a new post in a little while so that people can comment in real time if they are so moved.

Matt Young said: You may watch the debate here on NBC or here on WCPO, Cincinnati. Then, Piers Morgan at 9:45 EST, and MSNBC during the 10:00 hour, EST. I will run a new post in a little while so that people can comment in real time if they are so moved.