Bill Nye the Science Guy vs Ken Ham

[Moontanman]

IMO, bills original YouTube video that spawned this debate was horribly rude and unprofessional... I had lost a lot of respect for him... But, in the debate, he seemed more in control of himself. I respect that bill made at least some effort to touch on some of the actual points made... At least better than most.

 

As for ken... I was pretty disappointed. It seemed like he was just a less charismatic, less prepared version of Kent hovind. All of his points have been made more fluently in the past by his tax evading predicessor.

 

As for he debate... I would have liked to have seen bill expand a bit more on the winter/summer layers of ice a bit more. Personally, I don't doubt it, but I can freeze a bottle of water overnight and get a dozen visible layers. I'm curious what is interpreted as a summer/winter cycle.

 

Likewise, ken claimed that different dating methods, each considered reliable, often wildly disagree. He gave two examples, but not enough.

 

bill did step in a few times when he said that just one example of a few things could change his mind and ham failed to cite Plenty of examples of polystrate fossiles doing exactly what bill said was impossible. And modern human tools found in coal dated hundreds of thousands of years in the past. Also, when bill claimed that Noah was obviously an amature at woodworking, ken could have pointed out that, a woodworker with a decade of experience is more efficient than a novice. A woodworker with 20 years of experience will be considerably better.... If the story were accurate, Noah was hundreds of years old in a generation that gave him a couple hundred more healthy years to live... That would insinuate him being pretty experienced at his craft. No one said there were no lakes in those days, so boat building may have already been a science... And it was said that people could grow to giant proportions then. Beyond that, the instructions were said to be given by God. If he could create the universe, he could tell a burly dude with hundreds of years of experience how to build a boat.

 

 

 

To be fair, I'm a Christian too and not all Christians are young earth creationists. The best point bill made was that Ken's viewpoint wasn't even necessarily that of all religious people... Just his interpretation of the bible according to his preferred translation.

 

A few points I would argue with against ken:

One can believe in the bible and see that in the beginning God created the heavens and earth. It goes on to say what he did on earth, but gives NO indication that the "6 days" started when he started creating things. He could have spent a billion years on each galaxy for all we know, then at some point 6,000 years ago, began focusing on earth.

 

Even then, each "day" isn't necessarily 24 hours. The bible uses the same word for "day" when talking about God's sense of time... That from the perspective of a universal energy being, a thousand years is like a day, yet a day is like a thousand years. Each day was simply a "step" taken.... How long it took or exactly how he did it is not even hinted at. Therefore trees being 10,000 years old isn't a problem for all creationists... Just Yec.

 

Also, the bible never said that -nothing- died until humans sinned. Human sin was the beginning of human death. Dinosaurs could have eaten each other for millions of years before Adam was around.

 

 

The flood also could have been on a smaller scale.... WhiIe I could buy a worldwide flood assuming a major geological event such s major oceanic trenches closing, causing the water to rise significantly... I've always suspected that Noah lived in the valley that is now the mediterranian sea. I'm guessing that valley used to be blocked off, after a big rain, the natural dam broke allowing the ocean to flow in, flooding as far as Noah could see.

 

I'd like to see Bill Nye debate a creationist that isn't Yec.

 

 

I'd like to see you substantiate some of the horse feathers you asserted here, highlighted for your benefit...

BTW, YEC is incompatible with science, and the idea of a deistic creation is not incompatible but the bible does say that everything we see today was created as we see it, and that adam was created out of mud with no predecessors, science does indeed debunk that no matter how long it took to create the universe...

900 year old people is a bit much as well and no skill level will allow a boat big enough to contain all the species on earth, a local flood is a more reasonable example but it does contradict what the bible actually says...

[ydoaPs]

I'd like to see you substantiate some of the horse feathers you asserted here, highlighted for your benefit...

 

BTW, YEC is incompatible with science, and the idea of a deistic creation is not incompatible but the bible does say that everything we see today was created as we see it, and that adam was created out of mud with no predecessors, science does indeed debunk that no matter how long it took to create the universe...

 

900 year old people is a bit much as well and no skill level will allow a boat big enough to contain all the species on earth, a local flood is a more reasonable example but it does contradict what the bible actually says...

From a site every YEC should check out: tools in coal and polystrate fossils

 

Also, polystrate fossils aren't what Bill was talking about, fyi.

[Moontanman]

From a site every YEC should check out: tools in coal and polystrate fossils

 

Also, polystrate fossils aren't what Bill was talking about, fyi.

 

 

Um wasn't me suggesting those things were real ydoaPs...

[ydoaPs]

Um wasn't me suggesting those things were real ydoaPs...

I didn't mean to suggest it was. You just asked for citation. I provided.

[Didymus]

Phone gets horrible connectivity at my work, so I can't search for sources for you at the moment, but I'll try to dig up some pictures when I get off.

 

As for talkorigins... It very adequitely debunks a lot of claims.... Others, not so much. For example, most people who believe in a flood laying down sediments quickly instead of the geologic column taking millions of years would point to polystrate trees as a sign of this....

 

Talkorigins "debunks" it by stating that the tree didn't have to stay verticle for millions of years.... Those layers could have formed rapidly in a flood. Which is exactly the point.

 

Look into their responces to all of the examples of radiometric dating yielding completely erroneous results.... Last I looked they almost all made one excuse or another about these mistakes all being one time flukes that we should just trust never happen outside those... Dozens and dozens of times.

 

 

(keep in mind, I'm just providing the unrepresented viewpoint. Even with deistic creation, I see no reason dinosaurs couldn't have lived millions of years ago. And like most creationists, I believe in observable evolution. There may be many different types of birds that came from a common bird... That doesn't necessarily validate the leap in faith that a sexually reproducing animal came from an asexually reproducing bacteria, which came from the still unexplained process of biogenesis.)

[Moontanman]

I think this video give plenty of evidence about the trees...

 

 

There are list of citations of where the info comes from as well on the youtube page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

In geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation.^[2][4] Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.^[4] For example, geologists such as John W. F. Waldron and Michael C. Rygel have argued that the rapid burial and preservation of polystrate fossil trees found at Joggins, Nova Scotia was the direct result of rapid subsidence, caused by salt tectonics within an already subsiding pull apart basin, and resulting rapid accumulation of sediments.^[5][6] The specific layers containing polystrate fossils occupy only a very limited fraction of the total area of any of these basins.^[5][7]

 

Edited February 8, 2014 by Moontanman

[Mr. Sclater]

Hi there! Thought about joining the discussion after watching the debate..

 

The only reason I even bothered looking it up on youtube was because I heard from numerous people Nye is supposed to intelectually pummel the living crap out of a creationist douchebag. Thought it might be fun to see that..

First thing I've to say: It wasnt really a debate, was it? Both Nye and Ham never really had a chance to actively confront each other. You can tell by that fact that this 'debate' was purposely kept easy and shallow. Second thing I want to say: Ham really surprised me by basing his statements on 'scientific' reasoning. I've never heard of Ken Ham before and neither did I ever actually got into debates with creationists that wouldn't be silly enough to just ignore them. So to say I must admit I expected a bunch of religious crazy talk, indeceny and ignorance, leaving me surprised that he actually knows things, such as that age dating methods are extremely dubious.. I will get into that later.

Also I wasn't aware that there are actually succesful scientists and engineers living, who would work on the hubble telescope and modern medicine and would still enjoyingly sit in front of a camera claiming to believe in creation and basically proving they don't even believe that shit they are spending their lives on.

 

I really wished Ham would have gotten more into how inspecific and vague age dating methods are.. It's pretty much the only point I agree with him. Just a couple weeks ago I had a lecture on 'how we know the age and composition of earth'. I was sitting there and couldn't believe my professor is actually serious about this..

Without going too much into it, but just by guessing the chemical structure of the sun, noticing certain similarities with chondrites we assume our earth must have these same similarities. So by dating the age of chondrites we assume our earth must be of same age..

I as a sceptical person have massive concerns regarding this perception.. I wish Ham would have got into that, that would have made this 'debate' pretty interessting I guess.

 

As for Nye: I liked that he would keep on going in encouraging the youth to get into science and how society depends on new generations of scientists. Just really hated the fact he would keep on blabbering about "Americas superior position" and they need to mentain that position.. I'm utterly insulted and ashamed that he actually feels that he needs to emphasize what's in there for america.. as an intellectual patriotism shouldn't be part of his agenda when debating creationism. I also didn't like the casual jokes he had here in there.. they just seem out of place, if youre actually having a debate.

 

Given my impressions I think it was pretty interessting and worth a watch, but it's definitely not enhancing in any way..

 

Just need to drop something: I really despise creationists. I'm willing to give them my respects when they are actually contributing to science, but I'm asking them to keep their believes to themselfs. The way Ham was speaking (and thereby representing the creationist community) was just utterly disgraceful. You can pinpoint this by a very important question he was asked:

 

'what could possibly change your mind?' His response? Basically: 'nothing'. Utterly disgusting. How can you take interest and participate in science and at the same time completely seperate yourself from the idea of having a change of mind?

 

Those things absolutely don't work together.. what a deranged worldview this is.. I also enjoyed his statement: 'There is no way you can ever prove the age of earth.' My only reaction to that: what the hell, man?

 

If science proved anything in history then that we absolutely will never be able to estimate what's possible and what not. How can you say something is utterly impossible, while still at least believing in certain aspects of science?

 

Though Ham is quite sophisticated and much calmer than his creationist friends.. he is still a big wind-up and spits on basically everything science stands for.

[ydoaPs]

I really wished Ham would have gotten more into how inspecific and vague age dating methods are.. It's pretty much the only point I agree with him.

He couldn't, because they're not.

[Mr. Sclater]

I pretty much explained why they are, even as simple as I could. Dating Chondrites and assuming same things for earth is just highly inconvenient.

[John Cuthber]

"Without going too much into it, but just by guessing the chemical structure of the sun, "

We don't "guess".

That would be silly.

We can analyse it.

 

". So by dating the age of chondrites we assume our earth must be of same age.."

The chondrites are old.

They were formed on Earth.

The Earth can't be less old than the chondrites..

That's not an assumption, it's a deduction.

 

"If science proved anything in history then that we absolutely will never be able to estimate what's possible and what not. How can you say something is utterly impossible, "

Among other methods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[Moontanman]

Haven't rocks of nearly 4 billion years been dated from the Earth? If so the idea that deep time is flawed is debunked. The problems with dating methods is that the correct one has to be used in the correct circumstances. C-14 dating is not considered accurate in dating marine organisms due to their carbon not coming directly from the atmosphere. Dinosaur bones cannot be carbon dated because they are too old and don't contain carbon. The tree trunks Ken Ham mentioned that were encased in millions of year old rock but dated a few tens of years old was misdated due to the natural radioactivity of the basalt, radioactivity turns C-12 into C-14 and will give you erroneous readings. These are well known problems and can be compensated for.

[Ringer]

Well put Ringer. I have not thought about it like that before.

 

Does this mean that you restrain yourself when faced with an argument with an individual? If so, other than simply ignoring them, what is your response to avoid even conversing about the subject?

Sometimes I restrain myself, usually not unless my wife gives me the 'don't do it' look. The main reason why is to see if I can successfully argue against what they bring up. Real experience is the best teacher. If I do want to avoid it I ask them if I could change their mind during the discussion. Usually they say something that says they won't, so I say the discussion is pointless and move on.

 

I live in the dirty south where Creationism runs rampant. I say this only because the subject comes up quite frequently.

I live in the US bible belt, so I know the feeling.

 

At my university, I have to force myself to refrain from going to Philosophy Club meetings. The few times I have been, I have been the only one in the room who even really questions the existence of a higher being... In a philosophical setting...

 

This is part of the reason I have sought out others to talk to about these things, even if it means not getting the pleasure of doing it face to face.

There are always others with the same feelings, sometimes it's just damn hard to find them.

[Didymus]

I think this video give plenty of evidence about the trees...

 

(video)

 

There are list of citations of where the info comes from as well on the youtube page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

 

Indeed... in the "debunking" they suggest that polystrate trees are indicative of a catastrophe where sediment is laid down very quickly. The problem is every time there's not a tree there "These layers can only be laid down after millions of years each. No way a flood could do this." But every time there's a polystrate fossil "except this one area that had a flood."

 

As for the first part... the video claims "no soft tissue," "No Osteocytes" etc. based on their reading of her paper.... well... I'm not sure whether they were talking about one of per papers in particular, but the first one on the topic I found talks quite a bit about both of those things.

Abstract

Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preservedTyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments. At least three of the four components persist in some skeletal elements of specimens dating to the Campanian. Fibrous bone matrix is more altered over time in morphology and less likely to persist than vessels and/or osteocytes. Vessels vary greatly in preservation, even within the same specimen, with some regions retaining pliability and other regions almost crystalline. Osteocytes also vary, with some retaining long filipodia and transparency, while others present with short and stubby filipodia and deeply pigmented nuclei, or are pigmented throughout with no nucleus visible. Alternative hypotheses are considered to explain the origin/source of observed materials. Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence ofstill-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought. Additionally, in many cases, osteocytes with defined nuclei are preserved, and may represent an important source for informative molecular data."

... etc.

Haven't rocks of nearly 4 billion years been dated from the Earth? If so the idea that deep time is flawed is debunked. The problems with dating methods is that the correct one has to be used in the correct circumstances. C-14 dating is not considered accurate in dating marine organisms due to their carbon not coming directly from the atmosphere. Dinosaur bones cannot be carbon dated because they are too old and don't contain carbon. The tree trunks Ken Ham mentioned that were encased in millions of year old rock but dated a few tens of years old was misdated due to the natural radioactivity of the basalt, radioactivity turns C-12 into C-14 and will give you erroneous readings. These are well known problems and can be compensated for.

 

And that's exactly the kind of honesty most people are looking for. Even as a creationist, I'm not looking to ban the big bang and evolution from schools. I'd just like less brainwashing. Less presentation in the text books that "these are established facts. And questioning them discredits you."

 

The problem is people don't seem to take into consideration "this can't be dated a certain way because it was exposed to water or could have been near something else with enough radiation to yield erroneous results." ... if the test matches what you're looking for, it's assumed to be correct. If it doesn't match what you're looking for, we look for variables that can correct it to that date... and stop looking for variables once our preconceived date is reached.

 

I'm not a YEC, so I really don't object to the possibility of fossils being millions of years old... but an intellectually honest person should be able to admit the fallibility of some of the processes geologists use.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Didymus

[Moontanman]

Indeed... in the "debunking" they suggest that polystrate trees are indicative of a catastrophe where sediment is laid down very quickly. The problem is every time there's not a tree there "These layers can only be laid down after millions of years each. No way a flood could do this." But every time there's a polystrate fossil "except this one area that had a flood."

 

As for the first part... the video claims "no soft tissue," "No Osteocytes" etc. based on their reading of her paper.... well... I'm not sure whether they were talking about one of per papers in particular, but the first one on the topic I found talks quite a bit about both of those things.

Abstract

Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preservedTyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. The present study attempts to trace the occurrence of these four components in bone from specimens spanning multiple geological time periods and varied depositional environments. At least three of the four components persist in some skeletal elements of specimens dating to the Campanian. Fibrous bone matrix is more altered over time in morphology and less likely to persist than vessels and/or osteocytes. Vessels vary greatly in preservation, even within the same specimen, with some regions retaining pliability and other regions almost crystalline. Osteocytes also vary, with some retaining long filipodia and transparency, while others present with short and stubby filipodia and deeply pigmented nuclei, or are pigmented throughout with no nucleus visible. Alternative hypotheses are considered to explain the origin/source of observed materials. Finally, a two-part mechanism, involving first cross-linking of molecular components and subsequent mineralization, is proposed to explain the surprising presence ofstill-soft elements in fossil bone. These results suggest that present models of fossilization processes may be incomplete and that soft tissue elements may be more commonly preserved, even in older specimens, than previously thought. Additionally, in many cases, osteocytes with defined nuclei are preserved, and may represent an important source for informative molecular data."

... etc.

 

And that's exactly the kind of honesty most people are looking for. Even as a creationist, I'm not looking to ban the big bang and evolution from schools. I'd just like less brainwashing. Less presentation in the text books that "these are established facts. And questioning them discredits you."

 

The problem is people don't seem to take into consideration "this can't be dated a certain way because it was exposed to water or could have been near something else with enough radiation to yield erroneous results." ... if the test matches what you're looking for, it's assumed to be correct. If it doesn't match what you're looking for, we look for variables that can correct it to that date... and stop looking for variables once our preconceived date is reached.

 

I'm not a YEC, so I really don't object to the possibility of fossils being millions of years old... but an intellectually honest person should be able to admit the fallibility of some of the processes geologists use.

 

 

Generally radiometric dating is done by more than one means and if they don't match more tests are done with other dating methods. I was aware of this in Jr high school nearly 50 years ago.

Didymus, on 10 Feb 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

Indeed... in the "debunking" they suggest that polystrate trees are indicative of a catastrophe where sediment is laid down very quickly. The problem is every time there's not a tree there "These layers can only be laid down after millions of years each. No way a flood could do this." But every time there's a polystrate fossil "except this one area that had a flood."

 

 

Hmm no, in fact it is well known that not all layers were laid down in millions of years, you are strawmanning this particular idea.

 

As for the first part... the video claims "no soft tissue," "No Osteocytes" etc. based on their reading of her paper.... well... I'm not sure whether they were talking about one of per papers in particular, but the first one on the topic I found talks quite a bit about both of those things.

 

 

Again you are not up to date on this, the origin of that soft tissue is still being studied, we don't know yet if it is really what it looks like or bacterial in origin. The best thing about science is that new evidence is studied to see how it fits before it is proclaimed as part of reality. The soft tissue did indeed come as a surprize but at this time it's not been included as fact until it is better understood. That is far more reasonable that just taking it at face value, until we have more information it is still speculative... Would it be better to make sweepIng pronouncements from evidence we don't yet understand?

[4G3NTian]

Speaking of not being up to date: did anyone see the look on Bill's face when Ham proposed the horizon problem as debunking the Big Bang theory?

...and not something that was solved in the 60's. The quoting of which still doesn't address the very ominous Starlight problem.

 

 

I'd like to know where all these people who don't know apparently anything about thermodynamics, keep quoting the second law as proof against evolution. I mean seriously.

 

I was also blown away when Ham openly admitted he knows absolutely nothing about, or never bothered to study/research geomorphology. I mean I guess he would have to not have, in order to make some the claims he's making.

 

This was really just an advertising ploy for Ham's museum, and to once again attempt to put Christian-specific creationism on the map. Will we then teach the creation stories of Islam, or Buddhism or Hinduism? Doubt it. Will science teachers have a subject on searching for the Mormon Heaven-planet Kolob with a telescope? What about Xenu and his ancient volcano-escaping spirit cargo jets? Who knows.

Edited February 21, 2014 by 4G3NTian