How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know. I said, "untestable assumptions and conjecture..." 

 

By their very nature something untestable isn't scientific. Yet, imagine that within scientific theories there lies untestable aspects that are just assumed to be accurate, and in some cases (as with distant past) will never be tested. 

 

The basic premise is something that is untestable. That is the exact opposite science. Sure some things haven't been tested. More often than not for every answer we do get 5 more questions take its place. Such is science.

 

What is distant past? Is it something I don't have personal experience with. If that is the case then I wasn't alive when George Washington was around. To me that would be distant past. I have no desire to live like he did. Tricorne hats an all. So that past is not repeatable. Let's go back further say before man walked the earth. Can we not know anything about that time? Sure we can. We find physical evidence for it. Let's go back even further when dinosaurs walked the earth. Can we not know anything about them? Sure we can. We have their bones, and the poop they left. Do I personally want to meet a living hungry T-Rex in a dark alley? Not anytime soon.

Edited February 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

The basic premise is something that is untestable. That is the exact opposite science. Sure some things haven't been tested. More often than not for every answer we do get 5 more questions take its place. Such is science.

 

What is distant past? Is it something I don't have personal experience with. If that is the case then I wasn't alive when George Washington was around. To me that would be distant past. I have no desire to live like he did. Tricorne hats an all. So that past is not repeatable. Let's go back further say before man walked the earth. Can we not know anything about that time? Sure we can. We find physical evidence for it. Let's go back even further when dinosaurs walked the earth. Can we not know anything about them? Sure we can. We have their bones, and the poop they left. Do I personally want to meet a living hungry T-Rex in a dark alley? Not anytime soon.

 

Let's take the theory that man didn't live with the dinosaurs. 

 

According to the scientific consensus dino's became extinct by the time man came on the scene. This theory is based on dating the bones found within strata (among others methods). 

 

A common time line below:

 

Now, given as you said, "sure some things haven't been tested." What percentage of trustworthiness is this time line? Or to put it another way. What percentage is "untested" and what percentage is tested? 

 

Seems to me that given that it was 200 mya  the percentage of untested would be in the 90 percentile which would lead to a trustworthiness that was pretty low. 

 

Now, a red flag is when someone claims that this timescale is 100% trustworthy, or even 95% trustworthy. At that point we are dealing more with faith than science. The reason is simple. It hasn't been tested, nor can it be, and faith always goes beyond what is testable. Which is why we hear so many dogmatic statements from those with faith. 

 

Now the claim always is that "it's the best guess we have currently..." Which is true, however guesses always involve faith/hope/conjecture for which there is no way to test them. So, while this might represent the "best guess..." to atheists or non-believers in general. I don't think it's the best we have historically speaking as believers in God.  

[thesometimesaint]

 

Let's take the theory that man didn't live with the dinosaurs. 

 

According to the scientific consensus dino's became extinct by the time man came on the scene. This theory is based on dating the bones found within strata (among others methods). 

 

A common time line below:

 

Now, given as you said, "sure some things haven't been tested." What percentage of trustworthiness is this time line? Or to put it another way. What percentage is "untested" and what percentage is tested? 

 

Seems to me that given that it was 200 mya  the percentage of untested would be in the 90 percentile which would lead to a trustworthiness that was pretty low. 

 

Now, a red flag is when someone claims that this timescale is 100% trustworthy, or even 95% trustworthy. At that point we are dealing more with faith than science. The reason is simple. It hasn't been tested, nor can it be, and faith always goes beyond what is testable. Which is why we hear so many dogmatic statements from those with faith. 

 

Now the claim always is that "it's the best guess we have currently..." Which is true, however guesses always involve faith/hope/conjecture for which there is no way to test them. So, while this might represent the "best guess..." to atheists or non-believers in general. I don't think it's the best we have historically speaking as believers in God.  

 

You are far too generous. What we do know is but a thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance.

 

You are saying that the science is off by a factor of about 9000 to one. That is like heading for Paris; France, from Los Angeles; California and ending up in Beijing; China. All science works within tolerances. But you stretch it to ridiculousness.

 

A scientific theory is not a guess. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

LAW 

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

 2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

 3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

 

 THEORY

 1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

 2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

 3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

 4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

 5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

 6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).

 

That is really a Straw Argument. Science doesn't care if you are an Atheist or a Theist. Newton was arguably the world greatest scientist that has ever lived. He was also a Theist. Charles Darwin another of the worlds great minds was a Theist, albeit he was mad at God after the death of his daughter. They and other scientists like me just can't put God into the explanations of how this world/universe works.

[Rob Osborn]

And yet, in pretty much ecery ancient culture we have pictures on everything from paintins to textiles and pottery showing living breathing dinosaurs. The bible even mention two of them- the leviathon and behemoth. Not too long ago in the dark ages, dragons were fought off until extinction. The pictures of dragons all over the world depict actual living breathing dinosaurs. And yet, we throw all of that away from all ancient cultures as mythology.

[thesometimesaint]

In the Christian world we have talking snakes, the Unicorn, and the Cockatrice. All three mythological creatures.

[Rob Osborn]

In the Christian world we have talking snakes, the Unicorn, and the Cockatrice. All three mythological creatures.

And we also have Jesus Christ who is a god who performed miracles and is a resurrected being who lives in the universe. But science says he too is mythology. Whats your point?

[danielwoods]

You are far too generous. What we do know is but a thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance.

 

You are saying that the science is off by a factor of about 9000 to one. That is like heading for Paris; France, from Los Angeles; California and ending up in Beijing; China. All science works within tolerances. But you stretch it to ridiculousness.

 

A scientific theory is not a guess. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

 

That is really a Straw Argument. Science doesn't care if you are an Atheist or a Theist. Newton was arguably the world greatest scientist that has ever lived. He was also a Theist. Charles Darwin another of the worlds great minds was a Theist, albeit he was mad at God after the death of his daughter. They and other scientists like me just can't put God into the explanations of how this world/universe works.

 

The percentage of "ignorance" (using your word) that is depended upon, within any theory or hypothesis or group of hypotheses is what I'm talking about. We would agree, that the smaller the portion of ignorance, the greater the accuracy. Thus when talking about the Romans or Abe Lincoln we can do so with confidence. However, when talking about 200 million years ago, we rely on so very little evidence, and some of it relies on each other (index fossils). 

 

The dinosaur example. What happens if we discover dinosaur blood within a fossilized bone? Do you think that might indicate it's a tad bit younger than what is currently thought? 

 

The fact is dating something that is claimed to be 200 million years old is not something we can easily verify. 

[cinepro]

Holy cow.  They're defending young-Earth creationism.  That's creation in six 24-hour periods!

 

You can watch it here:

 

http://www.billnye.com/

 

He's also defending a global flood for Noah and literal Tower of Babel. 

Edited February 5, 2014 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

Nye is getting trounced by Ham in a charismatic and yellow journalistic fashion. This is much like anti Mormons wanting to get the story of TSM being summoned to court out in the tabloids. It is not the kind of embarrassment scientists and atheists will want to get out yet the live stream I'm watching is averaging half a million viewers.

Btw, I agree with Nye on science and disagree with Ham.  Ham is getting trounced scientifically but the problem is going to be the public in general is too scientifically illiterate to understand the difference.

 

I suppose there will be polls....

Edited February 5, 2014 by BCSpace

[David T]

Nye is getting trounced? No way.

 

Here's the consistent pattern of this debate:

 

Nye: Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence

Ham: You don't know that. Here's a Bible Verse that said God did it.

 

rinse and repeat. 

[BCSpace]

Nye is getting trounced? No way.

 

Here's the consistent pattern of this debate:

 

Nye: Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, Evidence

Ham: You don't know that. Here's a Bible Verse that said God did it.

 

rinse and repeat.

 

The problem with that is the intended audience as I pointed out.  I agree Nye trounced Ham on science.  But in the battle of convincing the public or the faithful public, he was defeated handily.  Nye doesn't come from a position of faith.  It would have been better for science if someone who accepts evolution AND is a devout Christian debated Ham.

Edited February 5, 2014 by BCSpace

[Helen47]

http://biologos.org/blog/ham-on-nye-our-take

 

Some evolutionary Christians responses

[cinepro]

I have to admit I was impressed with Ham's presentations.  I obviously don't agree with him about things like the rock layers being set down after the flood and things like that, but he definitely is good at fitting the evidence into a creationist framework.

[Stargazer]

Bill Nye was great in the Stargate Atlantis episode entitled "Brain Storm."

 

 

 .

 

I hardly ever watch TV, so it was neat to see Nye AND my favorite astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson in this clip.  Seriously, I never heard of this show, Stargate Atlantis.  I am such a... whatever.

[Rob Osborn]

I just watched the debate and Ham pretty much sold the audience about "there is a book" (bible) that can answer the questions that even Nye has no clue about. From that point on it was the usual misinterpretation of creationism and if it is relevant to science. Ham does a pretty darn good job of selling the case of what the issue is really about with defining what science is, what evidence is and how none of that has any relevance on connecting evolution with why we have technology (they really aren't related). Ham states over and over that both creationists and evolutionist embrace observational science and how that science has led to everything from the hubble telescope to the MRI machine. He then wisely argues that no new technology or invention has hinged off the theory of evolution (that was a very solid fact, kudos to Ham) being true or false. Nye kept arguing that there is no predictive power from the creationists but in so doing disregards Ham's repetition of the evidence such as the rocks laid in catastrophic form, the fact that "kinds" do not produce other "kinds" etc. Nye trys several times to win the audience by telling one liners for a laugh but fails miserably.

The only strong point that Nye came up with was how literal the bible should be and how wishy-washy Ham's response was over some being poetic and other parts literal. That was it though- the only strong point. As for his weak points-

Not enough time for all the fossils to get there. But what is this based upon? We have no observational science to document just how many living things can and will stack up in sedimentary layers in rapid and catastrophic burial beds. We have instances in recent history like Mt. St. Helens creating massive local flooding that rapidly buried billions and billions of dead things.

How did certain animals get to different continents. According to Mormon scripture we have record of migrations of people transporting animals of different kinds across the ocean.

Noah's ark too big to be sea-worthy and built by unskilled craftsman. Perhaps this is his weakest argument and surprisingly Ham doesn't address it. This is obviously a point where Nye has no belief in God or he would know that the scriptures say that it was God who designed the ark and instructed Noah how to build it. God also instructed two other groups in scripture we know of how to build sea going vessels who did not have previous ship building experience. This is where Nye just lacks logic and faith.

The sun creates energy which led to complexityof life. Wow! So, if I go and build a fire and throw a tree on in it's gonna turn into something more complex because I am creating energy? Wow! But then he states that evolution produced ultimately from this energy doesn'y necessarily get smarter. He should of never attempted to open his mouth on that one.

In the end Ham wins this debate hands down. Despite Ham dwelling too much on the "literal" aspect of the bible he seemed to be more directed at selling the public whats really going on and being honest about it. Nye kept trying to equate science with evolution and that because of this we have satellites, medicine, etc. But this all comes after Ham already and emphatically states that evolution has nothing to do with inventing new technology. Bill Nye does get credit for one thing though- he truly thinks its astonishing that life is here and we exist and he wants to find out...and then Ham again states"There is a book"...

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................   

That is really a Straw Argument. Science doesn't care if you are an Atheist or a Theist. Newton was arguably the world greatest scientist that has ever lived. He was also a Theist. Charles Darwin another of the worlds great minds was a Theist, albeit he was mad at God after the death of his daughter. They and other scientists like me just can't put God into the explanations of how this world/universe works.

You provide a number of good definitions and perspectives, and you correctly understand that the methods and data of science do not take sides in theistic and atheistic debates.  That is a very emotional and human quality.  I do take exception to your anthropomorphizing science, which is a fallacy, but one which hardly anyone on this board seems to see, so we can let that go.

 

However, it is only a "straw man" if those who are theists are also supernaturalists.  Scientists generally and correctly realize that supernature is not testable (not falsifiable in theory), and therefore outside the bounds of science.  For a logician supernature comes under the heading of nonsense.

 

By the way, although Isaac Newton was among the greatest of scientists, he  was also a very serious sorcerer (magus).

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not disputing that scientists are doing the best they know how to come up with accurate dates. I'm specifically talking about the untestable assumptions and conjecture that are involved in the process. The larger the date, the larger the magnitude of conjecture. 

Since the methods of dating differ according to what is being dated, I find your equation of large date = large conjecture without foundation.  Geologists and archeologists use a wide array of dating techniques, according to what sort of item is being dated.  They then correlate a variety of results from such methods.

Electron Spin Resonance

Fission Track Dating

Radiocarbon Dating

Geomagnetic Dating

Cation-Ratio Dating

Stratigraphy

Amino Acid Racemization

Dendrochronology

 

Stratigraphy, for example, is relative and sequential.   In the case of very deep ice cores (several miles deep), one can detect annual layers which can then be correlated with exact years in dendrochronology of tree rings (the unique patterns follow good and lean years, and can be exactly matched), and lake varves.  Individual sections of the cores can be tested for evidence of volcanism and other phenomena.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html .

 

Astrophysics has still another set of dating techniques which are and must be ingenious, and which are anything but inexact.

 

I recommend basic courses in geology and astronomy.

[Robert F. Smith]

And we also have Jesus Christ who is a god who performed miracles and is a resurrected being who lives in the universe. But science says he too is mythology. Whats your point?

Which scientist did the hard scientific research to show that Jesus is a myth?  I am aware of a lot of opinionmongering out there by all sorts of people, but have yet to see serious science address Jesus.

[Robert F. Smith]

The percentage of "ignorance" (using your word) that is depended upon, within any theory or hypothesis or group of hypotheses is what I'm talking about. We would agree, that the smaller the portion of ignorance, the greater the accuracy. Thus when talking about the Romans or Abe Lincoln we can do so with confidence. However, when talking about 200 million years ago, we rely on so very little evidence, and some of it relies on each other (index fossils). 

 

The dinosaur example. What happens if we discover dinosaur blood within a fossilized bone? Do you think that might indicate it's a tad bit younger than what is currently thought? 

 

The fact is dating something that is claimed to be 200 million years old is not something we can easily verify. 

Maybe or maybe not, but have a look at http://blogs.egu.eu/palaeoblog/2013/02/12/dinosaur-cells-identified-with-possible-dino-dna/ .

[maklelan]

The larger the date, the larger the magnitude of conjecture. 

 

This simply is not true. There are obviously margins of errors and deviations, and scientists are entirely open about that (usually), but things like the rate of acceleration of the universe's expansion can be measured by direct observation, which tells us that, without question, there was a determinable time when everything had to be together at the same point of divergence. That these observations and measurements can turn into cosmological models that can then produce predictions of other natural states that have later been verified by direct observation provides more concrete evidence of the models. This is not conjecture, this is theory corroborated by observation. It is no more conjecture than it is conjecture to believe 100 x 100 is 10,000 without counting up all 10,000 numbers. Actual conjecture is claiming the earth is 6,000 years old because if you make assumptions A, B, C, . . . X, Y, and Z about what the biblical text is and what it says, it comes out to about 6,000 years. 

[thesometimesaint]

You provide a number of good definitions and perspectives, and you correctly understand that the methods and data of science do not take sides in theistic and atheistic debates.  That is a very emotional and human quality.  I do take exception to your anthropomorphizing science, which is a fallacy, but one which hardly anyone on this board seems to see, so we can let that go.

 

However, it is only a "straw man" if those who are theists are also supernaturalists.  Scientists generally and correctly realize that supernature is not testable (not falsifiable in theory), and therefore outside the bounds of science.  For a logician supernature comes under the heading of nonsense.

 

By the way, although Isaac Newton was among the greatest of scientists, he  was also a very serious sorcerer (magus).

 

Being a scientist does tend to make me anthropomorphize myself.

 

ALL Theists are suoernaturalists. I don't put any pejorative valuation on that. Supernatural just means pertaining to God.

 

We all at some point reach the extent of our knowledge. Newton as great a mathematician as he was couldn't account for gravity's effect on the planets interacting on each other. That took another 130 years for a French mathematician to invent Perturbation theory.

SEE

 

I knew he was an alchemist(Arguably sorcery). His experiments in alchemy don't seem to have produced much of value.

Edited February 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

And we also have Jesus Christ who is a god who performed miracles and is a resurrected being who lives in the universe. But science says he too is mythology. Whats your point?

 

I'm fine with miracles. That science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be called science,

[thesometimesaint]

The percentage of "ignorance" (using your word) that is depended upon, within any theory or hypothesis or group of hypotheses is what I'm talking about. We would agree, that the smaller the portion of ignorance, the greater the accuracy. Thus when talking about the Romans or Abe Lincoln we can do so with confidence. However, when talking about 200 million years ago, we rely on so very little evidence, and some of it relies on each other (index fossils). 

 

The dinosaur example. What happens if we discover dinosaur blood within a fossilized bone? Do you think that might indicate it's a tad bit younger than what is currently thought? 

 

The fact is dating something that is claimed to be 200 million years old is not something we can easily verify. 

 

Percentages of necessity require at least a good understanding of the whole. IE; What is 20% of "X"?  Sure we know something about the Roman's because they wrote about themselves. The Roman's didn't write squat about the America's. If we go strictly by what the Roman's wrote the Amerids didn't exist.

 

There is nothing special about 200 million years ago that prohibits us from learning about it. We just use different methods for determining what did happen than what those creatures wrote down.

 

No. It wouldn't upset the timescale for dinosaurs. All dinosaurs, but birds, died out nearly 65 million years ago.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9936-top-10-dinosaur-myths.html#1

 

Though they looked nothing like modern day mammals. Mammals came on the scene some 200 million years ago.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

[thesometimesaint]

Which scientist did the hard scientific research to show that Jesus is a myth?  I am aware of a lot of opinionmongering out there by all sorts of people, but have yet to see serious science address Jesus.

 

I think we can be reasonably confident that a Yeshua bar Yosef existed. The Truth Claims of him being the Son of God are outside the purview of science.

[danielwoods]

Since the methods of dating differ according to what is being dated, I find your equation of large date = large conjecture without foundation.  Geologists and archeologists use a wide array of dating techniques, according to what sort of item is being dated.  They then correlate a variety of results from such methods.

Electron Spin Resonance

Fission Track Dating

Radiocarbon Dating

Geomagnetic Dating

Cation-Ratio Dating

Stratigraphy

Amino Acid Racemization

Dendrochronology

 

Stratigraphy, for example, is relative and sequential.   In the case of very deep ice cores (several miles deep), one can detect annual layers which can then be correlated with exact years in dendrochronology of tree rings (the unique patterns follow good and lean years, and can be exactly matched), and lake varves.  Individual sections of the cores can be tested for evidence of volcanism and other phenomena.  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html .

 

Astrophysics has still another set of dating techniques which are and must be ingenious, and which are anything but inexact.

 

I recommend basic courses in geology and astronomy.

 

Setting dates without direct observations can lead to error, which may or may not be true, because none are directly testing time. 

 

Take deep ice cores for example. How does one know that each "annual" layer is an actual annual layer and not just representative of a storm? My point is that it's not actually verifiable. It may be an annual layer, it may not be. Not actually observing it means the conclusions are based on conjecture. 

 

 

 

This simply is not true. There are obviously margins of errors and deviations, and scientists are entirely open about that (usually), but things like the rate of acceleration of the universe's expansion can be measured by direct observation, which tells us that, without question, there was a determinable time when everything had to be together at the same point of divergence. That these observations and measurements can turn into cosmological models that can then produce predictions of other natural states that have later been verified by direct observation provides more concrete evidence of the models. This is not conjecture, this is theory corroborated by observation. It is no more conjecture than it is conjecture to believe 100 x 100 is 10,000 without counting up all 10,000 numbers. Actual conjecture is claiming the earth is 6,000 years old because if you make assumptions A, B, C, . . . X, Y, and Z about what the biblical text is and what it says, it comes out to about 6,000 years. 

 

Maybe you're right, maybe not. Unfortunately it's not testable (directly). 

 

The models we create to fit the data into a framework has within it a level of untestable assumptions. The evolutionary model and the creation model both explain the observational data. The difference is the starting point.