Wonder Woman was all right! A scientist well, a competent scientist would say that the conventional clustering of traits associated with being black or white is artificial and does not align at all well with genuine biological groupings, but that is something different.
The debate was held in Ham's home territory, at the infamous Creation Museum in Kentucky.
This deity doesn't hurl bolts of lightning, unless it's with the express purpose of sparking abiogenesis in the primordial soup. Myers on Nye vs. Ham It's time to get caught up on a few things.
Two of the sillier entries came from William Saletan over at Slate He's very worked up about Bill Nye's claim that creationism poses a threat to our scientific… Debating Creationists The big debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham was tonight.
Click here for the video. The whole thing is close to three hours, so get comfortable if you want to watch it all. I was watching it live, but about two-thirds of the way through I kept losing the signal.
I would reload the page, but then… I agree Nye won and he earned my respect all around. I tend toward the creation model of origins and thought Ham came up short; especially when there were responses to Nye.
Ham focused on the philosophy of science instead of on the facts of research. Adaption to environmental changes would rely largely on existing genetic alternatives, so in time the alternatives within a group would thin, and adaption would become more difficult, and thus extinction of a specialized gene.
Following the flood the growth of new species from the highly diverse kinds would be very rapid but then would follow an exponential decay curve toward extinction over time.
This matches observed science; evolution partially avoids this problem of extinction and thinning gene diversity by saying that it is human activity that is the problem. Ham focused too much on historical science. Both evolution and creation models do have a historical element, but both should also have a predictable observable element.
The something from nothing transition is difficult for evolution model, but is directly in line with creation model. There really wasn't even a debate. Ken Ham's concept of "historical science" as if that was a real thing undermined everything else he tried to say.
There is no such thing as "historical science" as Ham described it. If there were, then no scientific progress would ever be made.
I do wish he had been called out on his contention that because science can never observe things in the past demonstrably untrue that we have to rely on someone who was there, i. Even if this argument were true on its face, which it isn't, what evidence does he have that the book he keeps referencing represents any form of truth?
He ignores the biggest assumption in his argument, that the bible represents the literal word of god. Of course since he conveniently contends that observation is not the only valid scientific method, he can ignore that little anomaly in his analysis. The bottom line is that any rational person will see that Bill Nye won based on facts and arguments.
On the other hand "true believers" will say that Ham won because obviously the bible i the only truth.
Log in to post comments By Craig not verified on 05 Feb permalink I think we forget sometimes that GOD is all powerfull, and if he can create a world in six days; why can't he give the necessary tools to a carpenter to make a boat to carry the animals in. If GOD wanted to make a boat with paper he can because he is all powerfull.
Log in to post comments By Michael baird not verified on 05 Feb permalink Heath: You seem to have several misconceptions or at least misunderstandings of both terminoligy and concept. It never has, and never will. That is a question for physical and organic chemists.
Evolution tells us, in detail, what happens over time to populations of organisms in a complex environment. It never has, and it never will. If you're truly interested, rather than just raising straw man arguments you've cribbed from others, you may wish to look up the "Casimir effect" for a discussion of the energy present in empty space, preferably incorporated into a good undergraduate course in quantum mechanics.
Galapagos finches, Lake Victoria Cichlids, guppies, Escherichia coli. There are many more concrete examples, but those are the easiest to understand.Feb 05, · Clark, an evangelical Christian who actually knows a thing or two about Biblical scholarship, thinks as little of Ham’s interpretation of the Bible as PZ Myers thinks of Ham’s understanding of.
An Analysis of the Misconceptions of PZ Myers and Ken Ham about the Bible. words. 2 pages. A Discussion on Sacred Sites and Their Religious Significance. words. 2 pages. The Different Examples of Polytheistic and Monotheistic Beliefs.
1, words. 4 pages.
Feb 05, · Clark, an evangelical Christian who actually knows a thing or two about Biblical scholarship, thinks as little of Ham’s interpretation of the Bible as PZ Myers thinks of Ham’s understanding of.
First, analysis of human genetic lineages in an evolutionary context actually refutes traditional racial groupings, and it describes a far longer, more complex history for humanity than the Bible does.
Dec 02, · PZ Myers will never agree with the position of Ken Ham, AIG, etc., because he knows they use their ignorance of evolution ("willingly" in this case) to try to debunk well established science or support their non-science stories.
Ahmet antibeso crunching an analysis of the misconceptions of pz myers and ken ham about the bible an analysis of students his vulcanized sign possessively? Ectoblastic and diseased Thibaud destabilizes his hepatization or polish ventrally.