Ken Ham vs Bill Nye (Is creation a viable model of origins?)

[Destructus86]

You're right. The vast multitudes of scientists who do consider it to be fact clearly don't know any better than you do, and are lying because they hate God.

A large portion of the "facts" keep changing...i'll wait till they make up their mind.

 

[Doctor Evo]

A large portion of the "facts" keep changing...i'll wait till they make up their mind.

To which facts are you referring?

I'm beginning to suspect that scientific illiteracy is the culprit here...

 

[NickNitro]

round and round we go, where we'll stop, no body knows.

 

[KevanG]

The kitty shall decide where it stops.

PRESS ZE BUTTON!

 

[Human Torch]

You're right. The vast multitudes of scientists who do consider it to be fact clearly don't know any better than you do, and are lying because they hate God.

Some have their own agenda,that much is certain.

 

[Human Torch]

A large portion of the "facts" keep changing...i'll wait till they make up their mind.

Aint it the truth.

 

[Teelie]

Some have their own agenda,that much is certain.

As do Creationists. They want their view point heard and they won't take no for an answer, or any explanation why their view point is not valid in a science-based class.

Aint it the truth.

And I can once again say the same thing of Creationists who will shift the goal posts to fit their agenda and at the same time accuse scientists of doing the same thing.

The facts aren't changing so much as they are clarified. There's always more detail to be found, more clarification to be made. More mistakes corrected. It isn't and never will be just discovering something and moving on without learning more about it.

That is part of the process.

 

[Dr.]

A large portion of the "facts" keep changing...i'll wait till they make up their mind.

Natural selection is biological descent with modification over generations - the process by which random genetic change is selected for by non-random survival/reproductive success. If you can grasp that, then you pretty much have a general, layperson’s understanding of evolution. Are there technical questions and details being disputed at the advanced/scholarly level? Of course. And if you’re undecided about the importance of, say, horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic organisms, it would be prudent to wait until the experts “make up their minds.” But that won’t affect the general definition of evolution (above) - any more than cutting-edge research on the Higgs-Boson particle would affect your basic understanding of gravity.

 

[KevanG]

So wait, you're saying if I forget all about everything I know about gravity I can fly?

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Some have their own agenda,that much is certain.

Riiiiight, and the 3% of "scientists" trying to push creationism have no agenda whatsoever. Not any at all...oh wait!

 

[Tanin]

So wait, you're saying if I forget all about everything I know about gravity I can fly?

Yes.

Air has substance... you can walk on it. (I love me some Bulletproof Monk)

 

[Teelie]

Good luck with that experiment, Kevan, let us know how it works out. t:

 

[KevanG]

I keep trying but I keep falling down.

Maybe if I try a higher place...

 

[Arc-Light]

I keep trying but I keep falling down.

Maybe if I try a higher place...

No no...the air is thinner the higher you go......you must go lower...

 

[KevanG]

You know what they say...

 

[jmc]

A large portion of the "facts" keep changing...i'll wait till they make up their mind.

Here's the thing about the science community - it always admits when it's wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity was laughed at for years until it was eventually proven to be correct. If anything science loves being wrong because it means there's more to study and figure out.

 

[The End]

A large portion of the "facts" keep changing...i'll wait till they make up their mind.

They HAVE made up their mind about evolution. It's considered a settled issue in the scientific community; they're as certain about it as they are about gravity and that's no joke, the evidence is overwhelming.

Human chromosome 2, alone, demonstrates that we share common ancestry with apes.

Consider - The genes can tell you all sorts of things. They can tell you who's related to you, they can tell you even which parts of the world your ancestors come from, they can tell you which species are which.

Human chromosome 2 is a fused chromosome - its been fused from ancestral chromosomes - these chromosomes are found in apes - we share common ancestry with apes. There is simply no other explanation that fits.

Here's a science journal on it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

Here's a scientist (also a christian) that explains it so any ol' layman can understand it.

[YT]zi8FfMBYCkk[/YT]

It's also interesting to note (Ken Miller talks about it) that before they found it that they predicted they would find it. Part of the power of science is in its ability to make testable predictions. Science: It works!

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Dawkins found himself in a similar situation debating the bishop of Australia. It was a farce.

Even more reason not to do it.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Yeah, but science is the devil!!!

 

[Doctor Evo]

Some have their own agenda,that much is certain.

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What is my agenda, exactly?

 

[The End]

Let's look at fossils!

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

Wow there's a useful page that explains how they date fossils!

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating

There's videos of the fossils on the site.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/evidence-human-evolution

Wow isn't it great to have all this access to information at your fingertips?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Natural selection is biological descent with modification over generations - the process by which random genetic change is selected for by non-random survival/reproductive success. If you can grasp that, then you pretty much have a general, layperson’s understanding of evolution. Are there technical questions and details being disputed at the advanced/scholarly level? Of course. And if you’re undecided about the importance of, say, horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic organisms, it would be prudent to wait until the experts “make up their minds.” But that won’t affect the general definition of evolution (above) - any more than cutting-edge research on the Higgs-Boson particle would affect your basic understanding of gravity.

How you never get nominated for Smartest Poster I'll never know.

 

[The End]

Why fossils are significant.

A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

They can date the fossils to very specific time periods; the fossils show transition over time. It's observing evolution across history in the fossil record.

 

[Teelie]

I'm an evolutionary biologist. What is my agenda, exactly?

To turn us all into apes I think.

 

[Tanin]

To turn us all into apes I think.

Doctor Zaius??