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

[ALAYMAN]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dgue/basic-assumptions-of-evolution

These form his list. Are there others? (I don't want to re-watch the whole debate.)

I would argue that these are assumptions of philosophical naturalism, which as a theist I oppose, and NOT scientific naturalism, which is I suppose just another way of saying "science" which I support.

To put a finer point on it, science, even as Ham likes to define it, deals in what is observable and falsifiable. This clearly excludes the supernatural.

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.

I think biologists, geologist, paleontologists, and cosmologists have done a fine job of presenting evidence for an old universe and evolution, without appeals to authority.

Where do you find the evidence to be lacking?

As Ham pointed out, the evidence that is in play (observational) is the same for both groups, but they approach the interpretation of the evidence from two differing vantage points.

As far as where I find it lacking, maybe I'll open that discussion at some point later.  My main peeve is that Christians like rsc2a have such antipathy for "conservatives" that they often see boogeymen where there are none, and are predisposed to make leaps of logic in favor of the pagans in order to not appear stodgy and stiff.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

That statement doesn't even make sense. The "A" in that equation should be 2.

Maybe if you're talking about the life span in dog years..... Its always to the "dogs" with numb num.

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.

Excuse me, but isn't the total number of people on earth a moot point as the total antediluvian population

would have been destroyed save eight? How could we tell now if 600 billion or 600 million died in the flood.

I didn't think a worldwide flood was in doubt among Christians gap or no gap.

Am I wrong on that?

Neither ddgently nor rsc2a believe in a global flood. They could care less what the Scriptures teach.

Thanks for the explanation.

I've been on both sides over the years. I don't relish the discussions like I once did.

 

[christundivided]

But it WAS on the national news. Hawking submitted his paper on January 22, 2014.  Newspapers around the country (from Seattle to Atlanta) were covering it by January 24. The story was covered by major media outlets. I presented much more than a "Google search." I'm sorry whatever radio station you listen to didn't cover it.

I rarely listen to the radio. We'll I do... but not radio stations.

Sorry buddy. It didn't get the attention Hilary's comments on "Monica" got. I guess "Monica" is more important...

But he wasn't flat out wrong!

Yes. He was flat out wrong. How in the world can you say a black holes is now a "gray hole" and something didn't go horribly wrong.

Make me, oh wise one.

You the one appeared to be volunteering to be silent. Looks like you've changed your mind. Happens a lot with you.

I didn't say you were for those things. I said that prevailing thought on what the Bible meant was cool with them. I didn't say EO and RC's had a monopoly on truth, only that they have a monopoly on saying the Bible has always meant the same thing. Because the rest of us have Luther to thank for shaking up what was centuries worth of the Bible meaning one thing.

In your mind. Paul didn't own slaves and he wasn't a womanizer..... moron. Neither did Peter, James and John.

Luther didn't "shake up my world".

Sorry I can't classify what your [expletive deleted]ty job is from two sentences bragging about your fancy equipment.

LOL. All jobs have their problems. Thank the Lord, I've done well in my life. I've enjoyed more than I've ever imagined. Granted, I didn't think I'd be here arguing job descriptions with Rosie ODonnell.

I've never insulted those teachings. I just think they're wrong.

Nah.... Its not insulting to believe inerrancy and infallibility is wrong. Not at all..... You live in a really small world.

I'll not be drawn into a battle of wits. After all, you're unarmed!

So says the man bringing a pink power ranger "power bow  to a sword fight.

 

[christundivided]

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.

y=Ae^rt is a pretty standard equation used to determine exponential growth. However, you're not understanding how he is presenting the #s.

A = 5.345778E-6 and and r=0.01729179

is representing the known rate between 1964 and 2013.

Of course he is use "2" as the final target. He is just explaining the method he used. The final "t" is not known.

 

[rsc2a]

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.

y=Ae^rt is a pretty standard equation used to determine exponential growth. However, you're not understanding how he is presenting the #s.

A = 5.345778E-6 and and r=0.01729179

is representing the known rate between 1964 and 2013.

Of course he is use "2" as the final target. He is just explaining the method he used. The final "t" is not known.

So, the author is using an inital population of approximately 5/1000000 and a positive growth rate to show how populations are decreasing. Not only this, but he still gets the math wrong unless he believes there were 95,358 different Adam and Eve pairs were actually running around. Furthermore, he has a base assumption that utilizes the growth rate for the last 50 years, fifty years when the average life expectancy has more than doubled, and counts this as a reasonable approximation for all of human civilization.

We should think this guy knows what he's talking about why?

 

[christundivided]

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.

y=Ae^rt is a pretty standard equation used to determine exponential growth. However, you're not understanding how he is presenting the #s.

A = 5.345778E-6 and and r=0.01729179

is representing the known rate between 1964 and 2013.

Of course he is use "2" as the final target. He is just explaining the method he used. The final "t" is not known.

So, the author is using an inital population of approximately 5/1000000 and a positive growth rate to show how populations are decreasing. Not only this, but he still gets the math wrong unless he believes there were 95,358 different Adam and Eve pairs were actually running around. Furthermore, he has a base assumption that utilizes the growth rate for the last 50 years, fifty years when the average life expectancy has more than doubled, and counts this as a reasonable approximation for all of human civilization.

We should think this guy knows what he's talking about why?

You're adding to what he said. He said nothing more than what he said. Either way, the rate doesn't even get close to a base 2 over 30,000 years.

 

[rsc2a]

The number doesn't go down at all. The rate is increasing. Just because the person decided to  start with an initial population of 5 / 1000000 of one person to make the math work doesn't change that. The rate at 30,000 years wouldn't get closer to two because it would be a bigger number. That's what happens when the rate is increasing and you increase the time period.

The simple fact is that you were wrong, and your petty little comment about life spans in dog years had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

 

[christundivided]

The number doesn't go down at all. The rate is increasing. Just because the person decided to  start with an initial population of 5 / 1000000 of one person to make the math work doesn't change that. The rate at 30,000 years wouldn't get closer to two because it would be a bigger number. That's what happens when the rate is increasing and you increase the time period.

The simple fact is that you were wrong, and your petty little comment about life spans in dog years had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I wasn't wrong. The guy explained the math. The math was based on a standard exponential equation. You may argue about the year but claiming A =2 is nonsense given the what the man said. You're the one being dishonest with the #s.

IF you're so upset with it. Take it up with the guy that did it.

Yes. I can be petty sometimes. Its not more a bad character trait than constantly being obtuse.

 

[rsc2a]

The number doesn't go down at all. The rate is increasing. Just because the person decided to  start with an initial population of 5 / 1000000 of one person to make the math work doesn't change that. The rate at 30,000 years wouldn't get closer to two because it would be a bigger number. That's what happens when the rate is increasing and you increase the time period.

The simple fact is that you were wrong, and your petty little comment about life spans in dog years had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I wasn't wrong. The guy explained the math. The math was based on a standard exponential equation. You may argue about the year but claiming A =2 is nonsense given the what the man said. You're the one being dishonest with the #s.

IF you're so upset with it. Take it up with the guy that did it.

Yes. I can be petty sometimes. Its not more a bad character trait than constantly being obtuse.

Clearly. After all, math works differently depending on where you happen to live or something. Let us all bow before the infallible greatness that is christundivided.

 

[ddgently]

I think the problem we're having in the present discussion is not "What should 'A' be?" or "What should we use for 'r'?" or "When does t=0 occur?"

Exponential growth is not a good model for human population. We're not bacteria. When faced with a survival challenge, we innovate instead of dying out.

Sure, if you zoom out far enough you can fit a line to the data. But is it really predicitive? At the far future end, we'll eventually reach the carrying capacity of the planet. And at the far past end, the curve goes to zero too quickly for either camp (YEC or OE).

So to get to the original question, "What evidence do you see for a young earth/against an old earth?" I would follow up: If an exponential growth is not a good model for the human population, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

 

[subllibrm]

I think the problem we're having in the present discussion is not "What should 'A' be?" or "What should we use for 'r'?" or "When does t=0 occur?"

Exponential growth is not a good model for human population. We're not bacteria. When faced with a survival challenge, we innovate instead of dying out.

Sure, if you zoom out far enough you can fit a line to the data. But is it really predicitive? At the far future end, we'll eventually reach the carrying capacity of the planet. And at the far past end, the curve goes to zero too quickly for either camp (YEC or OE).

So to get to the original question, "What evidence do you see for a young earth/against an old earth?" I would follow up: If an exponential growth is not a good model for the human population, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

I believe it is a good indicator and you betray your bias be saying it isn't. So there. 

 

[ddgently]

I think the problem we're having in the present discussion is not "What should 'A' be?" or "What should we use for 'r'?" or "When does t=0 occur?"

Exponential growth is not a good model for human population. We're not bacteria. When faced with a survival challenge, we innovate instead of dying out.

Sure, if you zoom out far enough you can fit a line to the data. But is it really predicitive? At the far future end, we'll eventually reach the carrying capacity of the planet. And at the far past end, the curve goes to zero too quickly for either camp (YEC or OE).

So to get to the original question, "What evidence do you see for a young earth/against an old earth?" I would follow up: If an exponential growth is not a good model for the human population, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

I believe it is a good indicator and you betray your bias be saying it isn't. So there. 

But I'm not arguing that the present human population supports one side or the other.

 

[rsc2a]

I think the problem we're having in the present discussion is not "What should 'A' be?" or "What should we use for 'r'?" or "When does t=0 occur?"

Exponential growth is not a good model for human population. We're not bacteria. When faced with a survival challenge, we innovate instead of dying out.

I think it matters because the guy(s) who used these equations to prove their claims clearly had no clue what they were doing. It's like some person explaining how cancers happen and talking about the nanobots the government is adding to our water to poison us all.

[quote author=ddgently]So to get to the original question, "What evidence do you see for a young earth/against an old earth?" I would follow up: If an exponential growth is not a good model for the human population, what relevance does it have to the discussion?[/quote]

Other than the proving the aforementioned lack of relevant factual knowledge by a few folks who others appealed to as authorities, nothing.  8)

 

[Mathew Ward]

I think the problem we're having in the present discussion is not "What should 'A' be?" or "What should we use for 'r'?" or "When does t=0 occur?"

Exponential growth is not a good model for human population. We're not bacteria. When faced with a survival challenge, we innovate instead of dying out.

I think it matters because the guy(s) who used these equations to prove their claims clearly had no clue what they were doing. It's like some person explaining how cancers happen and talking about the nanobots the government is adding to our water to poison us all.

[quote author=ddgently]So to get to the original question, "What evidence do you see for a young earth/against an old earth?" I would follow up: If an exponential growth is not a good model for the human population, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

Other than the proving the aforementioned lack of relevant factual knowledge by a few folks who others appealed to as authorities, nothing.  8)
[/quote]

I guess he does not compare to you.

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

 

[rsc2a]

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

http://www.icr.org/jason_lisle/[/quote]

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.

 

[Mathew Ward]

[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.
[/quote]

It's ironic that you chide CU for being all knowing, yet you act the same way.

I think Jesus would have said "Physician heal thyself".

 

[Mathew Ward]

[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.
[/quote]

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

Then give us the formula you think is better suited to it.

Do you agree with Nye that man has been on the earth for 30,000 years?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Excuse me, but isn't the total number of people on earth a mute point as the total antediluvian population

would have been destroyed save eight? How could we tell now if 600 billion or 600 million died in the flood.

I didn't think a worldwide flood was in doubt among Christians gap or no gap.

Am I wrong on that?

I believe in the Gap Theory. I believe in TWO universal floods; pre-Adamic (state of the earth's surface in Genesis 1:2) as well as the Noahic flood.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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.

 

[ddgently]

[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.

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

Not all quantities can be modeled well analytically (i.e., with a formula). # of humans alive at time 't' is one of those quantities.

I'm not sure I heard Nye say 30,000. The oldest fossil of an anatomically modern human is about 195,000 years old.