Ken Ham (Creation) | Bill Nye (Evolution) Debate

[subllibrm]

Then on this level it is was a fool's errand and an illusion to think that reasonable debate on the subject of origins could even logically be feasible.  The point, as my good friend Al Mohler made, is that despite the scientists false claim to objectivity, he comes to the table with a whole bag full of presuppositions, but don't or won't readily admit that he limits the possibilities of theory.

This can be said of just about any side of any logical debate. The Creationist also has to approach it with presuppostions also.

Which of course is exactly what Mohler said. The difference is that I am more than willing to admit that I have a bias, identify that bias and build my world view from that bias. What Mohler was addressing is the idea that those who claim they are beholden only to science are fooling themselves when they say they bring nothing but a blank slate to the question.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]I guess he does not compare to you.

http://www.icr.org/jason_lisle/

I don't care if the guy has fifteen Ph.D.s, all in mathematics. If he tells me 1+1=3, he's still wrong.

Also I had asked you earlier, you must have missed the questions.

Then give us the formula you think is better suited to it.[/quote]

It's not my area of expertise. If you were to use the population equation as they are attempting to do, you would have to have a changing rate of rate of change, and you'd need a formula for that as well. Like ddgently said, it's not a simple algebraic expression but one having who knows how many derivatives in the formula.

And, it's not even that he chose a bad formula. It's that he badly used a formula he chose badly. He's trying to solve for Po, yet doesn't solve for Po but instead makes up a value for it and solves for a known t. And the value he made up for the initial population is 1/5000000, a number that makes absolutely no sense in this context. (It should be 2.) Furthermore, he uses a positive rate of change while trying to show a decline in population. Again, something that makes no sense. Finally, he doesn't give the assumption he used for Pf, but one could probably guess reasonably close to what he assumed...it's just odd since the formula is actually solving for Pf.

And, I chide CU for acting like he is all knowing because he refuses to admit when he is wrong, not because he has an opinion. Well, that and the fact that he thinks anyone who doesn't worship at the church of CU is a "moron".

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Do you agree with Nye that man has been on the earth for 30,000 years?[/quote]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Which of course is exactly what Mohler said. The difference is that I am more than willing to admit that I have a bias, identify that bias and build my world view from that bias. What Mohler was addressing is the idea that those who claim they are beholden only to science are fooling themselves when they say they bring nothing but a blank slate to the question.

Exactly right.

And, I chide CU for acting like he is all knowing because he refuses to admit when he is wrong,...

You mean like you've became a complete ostrich on the matter of providing sources for your claim that Ham acted unChristian whilst Nye showed the picture of civility? You have a habit of running from situations where you've been proven to be less than forthright.


Physician, heal thyself.

 

[subllibrm]

<snip> It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

I mean the man Adam. I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

 

[rsc2a]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

 

[subllibrm]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

Careful there buddy, lest you be given a google link. 

 

[rsc2a]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

Have I said anything about your view on this matter being wrong?

Or is "I don't know" not an acceptable response to questions now?

 

[Mathew Ward]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

Have I said anything about your view on this matter being wrong?

Or is "I don't know" not an acceptable response to questions now?

I don't know is more than acceptable, had you said I don't know.

 

[rsc2a]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

Have I said anything about your view on this matter being wrong?

Or is "I don't know" not an acceptable response to questions now?

I don't know is more than acceptable, had you said I don't know.

<shrug>

"I don't know. And, furthermore, I don't think it matters." See also "meh", "Who cares?", and "What difference does it make?"

 

[Mathew Ward]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

Have I said anything about your view on this matter being wrong?

Or is "I don't know" not an acceptable response to questions now?

I don't know is more than acceptable, had you said I don't know.

<shrug>

"I don't know. And, furthermore, I don't think it matters." See also "meh", "Who cares?", and "What difference does it make?"

Your first answer was you didn't care, not that you didn't know. They you tried to throw it back at me and have me define your evolutionary view of man. I told you to use definitions you were comfortable with and give us a number of how long man has been here. You don't want to, which is fine. I wouldn't want to either if it didn't support my position. Then after all of that you said you don't know...

 

[ALAYMAN]

"I don't know. And, furthermore, I don't think it matters." See also "meh", "Who cares?", and "What difference does it make?"

See the part in red?  That's new (added) to the original quote.


"I don't know" is not synonymous with "I don't care".  But keep up the intellectual dishonesty and subterfuge, so that all reading can see how you tick.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Your first answer was you didn't care, not that you didn't know. They you tried to throw it back at me and have me define your evolutionary view of man. I told you to use definitions you were comfortable with and give us a number of how long man has been here. You don't want to, which is fine. I wouldn't want to either if it didn't support my position. Then after all of that you said you don't know...[/quote]

Congratulations. You can now deduce from a *shrug* on the interwebs what the individual is implying, even when the individual tells you that you are wrong in your deduction. You should probably go into mind-reading, but a very specialized form of mind-reading where you have to read the client's mind and then tell the client why the client is wrong when they don't believe your amazing abilities since those abilities don't match the thoughts the client believes he is experiencing in his own mind.

Edited to add: You should probably become partners with Alayman. You two can make a killing!

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Your first answer was you didn't care, not that you didn't know. They you tried to throw it back at me and have me define your evolutionary view of man. I told you to use definitions you were comfortable with and give us a number of how long man has been here. You don't want to, which is fine. I wouldn't want to either if it didn't support my position. Then after all of that you said you don't know...

Congratulations. You can now deduce from a *shrug* on the interwebs what the individual is implying, even when the individual tells you that you are wrong in your deduction. You should probably go into mind-reading, but a very specialized form of mind-reading where you have to read the client's mind and then tell the client why the client is wrong when they don't believe your amazing abilities since those abilities don't match the thoughts the client believes he is experiencing in his own mind.

Edited to add: You should probably become partners with Alayman. You two can make a killing!
[/quote]


Yes, that's it.  When confronted with your patent dishonesty go into all out Snark Mode and create a diversion, obfuscate, and become as obtuse as possible.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mathew Ward]Your first answer was you didn't care, not that you didn't know. They you tried to throw it back at me and have me define your evolutionary view of man. I told you to use definitions you were comfortable with and give us a number of how long man has been here. You don't want to, which is fine. I wouldn't want to either if it didn't support my position. Then after all of that you said you don't know...

Congratulations. You can now deduce from a *shrug* on the interwebs what the individual is implying, even when the individual tells you that you are wrong in your deduction. You should probably go into mind-reading, but a very specialized form of mind-reading where you have to read the client's mind and then tell the client why the client is wrong when they don't believe your amazing abilities since those abilities don't match the thoughts the client believes he is experiencing in his own mind.

Edited to add: You should probably become partners with Alayman. You two can make a killing!

Yes, that's it.  When confronted with your patent dishonesty go into all out Snark Mode and create a diversion, obfuscate, and become as obtuse as possible.[/quote]

2 for 2. You have now managed to read my mind twice and tell me what I was thinking even when I thought I was actually thinking something else. Very impressive, Obi Wan.

 

[subllibrm]

I don't think it matters, and I am, frankly, not that concerned with how long we have been here. It is also going to greatly depend on what you mean by "man" from an evolutionary perspective.

Since I don't ascribe to evolution you can define in terms you are comfortable with and give us a number you think is accurate.

<shrug>

Well with an answer like that how can I conclude anything but that you are right and I am wrong?  ???

Have I said anything about your view on this matter being wrong?

Or is "I don't know" not an acceptable response to questions now?

I don't know is more than acceptable, had you said I don't know.

<shrug>

"I don't know. And, furthermore, I don't think it matters." See also "meh", "Who cares?", and "What difference does it make?"

I would love to see rsc2a engage with Matthew Ward on the bolded parts. But I will go out on a limb and predict that he won't.  8)

 

[rsc2a]

What's to engage?

 

[subllibrm]

What's to engage?

How about the "IT" you refer to that will greatly depend on your definition of "man" that MW has graciously offered you freedom to provide and then put in the number of years of existence of said "man" that would go with that definition.

 

[rsc2a]

Man = "a created being who bears the image of God"

Number of years in existence? *shrug* <~~ Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? I don't care.