Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Overlord Thraka wrote: Why don't you read some of Ham's work before you start trash talking him! I for one respect him!
What example of his work would you recommend?
How about 25 questions? It's a book by several authors but mostly Ham
Also Birdbrain, (Peregine or however you spell it) You utterly disgust me. You with your oh-so-strong opinion of yourself constantly thinking your point is the correct one no matter what anyone else says.
As for this thread. I wash my hand of it. GOOD BYE.
I wasn't able to find a book named "25 Questions", but maybe this is the one you mean? Link
I've been reading through the sample. Unfortunately it all seems to be pretty standard fare, mostly based on sweeping statements that assume the answer ("God done it") but including false statements as well (that all mutations necessarily decrease information). Then he talks about "irreducible complexity." Irreducible complexity is a notion that's thoroughly discredited for a raft of reasons, to the extent that even Darwin himself refuted it in The Origin of Species.
Here's an example of that refutation:
Spoiler:
The Origin of Species wrote:We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.
The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swimbladder. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or 'ideally similar,' in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration.
In any event, I would be surprised if Ken Ham brings up Irreducible Complexity in the debate, as it's been refuted from all sorts of angles.
He also asks, "how could information (DNA) have come from nothing, with no context to interpret it?" but that seems to have been tentatively answered by scientific development. Research is ongoing!
In the next chapters, Ken Ham launches a spirited defense of the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that it was created in six days. This one is quite interesting and has some funny quotes:
The New Answers Book 1 wrote:To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible's teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ. It also makes God into a bumbling, cruel creator who uses (or can't prevent) disease, natural disasters, and extinctions to mar His creative work, without any moral cause, but still calls it all "very good."
I actually have more respect for the guy reading what he's written in the other chapters. It's quite interesting to see his point of view, and key bits are laid out in cute cartoons. He's clearly very into internal consistency and doesn't like the idea that the Bible is up for interpretation, as well as not liking some of the implications of that non-literal interpretation.
So, thanks for that reference. It was very interesting to read and look into. Unfortunately, as I've outlined his arguments presented there against evolution are totally bunk (and I think I should mention that "evolution is wrong, therefore God" isn't logically sound either) and it sort of undermines his position as a biblical literalist. The work does give a better idea of who he is as a person, though, and it suggests some good things about him.
People who deny evolution (creationists, intelligent-design(ists?)) never have any evidence for what they say or their "evidence" is completely wrong. Take one intelligent-design argument that our eyes could not be made randomly. Not only has it been proven exactly how our eyes evolved, our eyes are a good example of no intelligent-design. The capillaries in our eyes are in front of out photo-receptors instead of behind them, making our vison slightly less sharp. It is not enough to negitivly effect us at all, but an intelligent designer would not have made eyes that way.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Manchu wrote: Curial officials at the Vatican have concluded that creationism is not science. Please do not confuse Catholicism with that garbage.
That's right because..whatever the Vatican says is true..........
Anyway..Ken Ham is pretty sharp, if you guys have never heard him speak I think your selling him quite short in his ability to hold his own vs someone who holds to old earth creationism.
The eye "argument" is an especially amusing example of creationist dishonesty. They love to quote Darwin's "it's hard to imagine how the eye could have evolved" statement, deliberately ignoring the fact that it's immediately followed by "but here's some thoughts on how it could have happened". They just know that their audience is unlikely to go read the original source and see how blatantly out of context the quote is. But hey, I guess it's ok to lie as long as you're doing it for Jesus?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: Anyway..Ken Ham is pretty sharp, if you guys have never heard him speak I think your selling him quite short in his ability to hold his own vs someone who holds to old earth creationism.
No, Ken Ham isn't sharp. He's a dishonest with some public speaking talent, nothing more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 01:20:39
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
Mod hat on--this thread has already generated one alert--and the topic tends to inflame users. Let's keep our discussion objective and not stray into personal attacks.
Thanks,
Ryan
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
Anyway..Ken Ham is pretty sharp, if you guys have never heard him speak I think your selling him quite short in his ability to hold his own vs someone who holds to old earth creationism.
GG
The guy who doesnt want to teach kids to think critically? And doesnt want them to learn the difference between historical Science and Observational Science?
generalgrog wrote: That's right because..whatever the Vatican says is true..........
Well, considering the Catholic Church has over 1 billion members and is also the world's largest Christian church, I would say their opinions on matters might carry some weight.
Anyway..Ken Ham is pretty sharp, if you guys have never heard him speak I think your selling him quite short in his ability to hold his own vs someone who holds to old earth creationism.
If by "sharp" you mean he knowingly uses intellectually dishonest arguments to push his agenda of medieval superstitions on the masses of the uniformed public, then yeah... super sharp guy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/02 03:29:24
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
generalgrog wrote: Anyway..Ken Ham is pretty sharp, if you guys have never heard him speak I think your selling him quite short in his ability to hold his own vs someone who holds to old earth creationism.
GG
Not at all, I've seen his work and the work of a few of his peers, and you're right they're very sharp and always have a comeback or counter-example, and hold themselves up very well in debate.
But that doesn't mean what they're saying is true in any way. That's the point I made earlier in the thread, these 'debates' are always between a guy who's made a living studying the natural world, and a guy who's made a living trying to sell an easy answer. The former is hard to sell because by it's nature it is complex, often counter-intuitive and many layered, while the latter is an easy sell because that's what it was invented to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: If by "sharp" you mean he knowingly uses intellectually dishonest arguments to push his agenda of medieval superstitions on the masses of the uniformed public, then yeah... super sharp guy.
Well, sharp can mean that. Those sleazy criminal lawyers who'll say or do anything to get their clients off... those guys are sharp. Politicians are sharp. The public relations officer that gets trotted out to spin the company line is sharp.
Well, not all politicians and very few PR people are sharp, but you get my point. You can be quick witted and able to sell an argument very well, while selling an argument that's complete and utter bunk.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/03 03:08:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
My point was simply that there were some people on here dismissing Ken Ham as some guy living in his moms basement...going up against BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY and fixin to get pwned.
Those guys are going to be quite surprised.
And I think sebster and I are kind of saying the same thing, except I'm not insulting Mr. Ham by comparing him to a sleazy lawyer.
Not at all, I've seen his work and the work of a few of his peers, and you're right they're very sharp and always have a comeback or counter-example, and hold themselves up very well in debate.
But that doesn't mean what they're saying is true in any way. That's the point I made earlier in the thread, these 'debates' are always between a guy who's made a living studying the natural world, and a guy who's made a living trying to sell an easy answer. The former is hard to sell because by it's nature it is complex, often counter-intuitive and many layered, while the latter is an easy sell because that's what it was invented to be.
I think that's pretty much spot on. I also think that's a general issue science educators (or debaters I guess) are going to face in the coming years. The complexities certainly outstrip the 'debate' format, where a petitioner is allowed 5 minutes rebuttal--on a subject that would likely take a year+ education to really understand. I think the challenge of educating people in that short of a time period, plus disputing the coming fallacies of Ham....is simply going to be too constrained by time.
I am shocked that Nye gave the guy credence by even bothering with the debate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/03 03:55:19
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
I think that's pretty much spot on. I also think that's a general issue science educators (or debaters I guess) are going to face in the coming years. The complexities certainly outstrip the 'debate' format, where a petitioner is allowed 5 minutes rebuttal--on a subject that would likely take a year+ education to really understand. I think the challenge of educating people in that short of a time period, plus disputing the coming fallacies of Ham....are simply going to be too constrained by time.
Nah.... I think it's all in presentation. Yeah guys like Ham have it down to a science, but so do guys like Neil Tyson DeGrasse, who I've seen speaking on a few occasions. I think the problem may come down to there just being a large group of people who are so incredibly indoctrinated one way or another, that, unless you have a very slick "salesman" at these debates, or discussions, one side is going to come out looking badly.
generalgrog wrote: My point was simply that there were some people on here dismissing Ken Ham as some guy living in his moms basement
No, we are dismissing Ken Ham as charlatan. His living situation has no bearing on his intellectual dishonesty.
going up against BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY and fixin to get pwned.
Those guys are going to be quite surprised.
Who is going to get "pwned?" Bill Nye? Not likely. Bill Nye is a popularizer and communicator of science, and has been for 20 some years. It is his job to explain complex concepts so the lay person can understand them, and he is quite good at it. If anything, you are underestimating Bill Nye.
except I'm not insulting Mr. Ham by comparing him to a sleazy lawyer.
You're right, as a "man of God," he's worse than a sleazy lawyer. At least with a lawyer, you expect them to be dishonest.
generalgrog wrote: That's right because..whatever the Vatican says is true..........
... I would say their opinions on matters might carry some weight.
Only to Roman Catholics.
Of which there are more of than any other denomination.
There was a reformation for a reason.
Spoiler alert: It wasn't because of science.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/03 03:59:51
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Well, tongue in cheek, the Reformation was partially caused by science. The mechanical science of the printing press--and the biological science of Henry the VIII's loins.
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
generalgrog wrote: And I think sebster and I are kind of saying the same thing, except I'm not insulting Mr. Ham by comparing him to a sleazy lawyer.
GG
I was using examples to explain the concept of sharp, no comparison is made between examples in that group. For instance, I could say that Ken Ham is from Australia, and I am from Australia. There is no comparison between myself and Ham, merely a listing of examples that hopefully helps explain something to people about what 'being from Australia' means.
If I do have to explain the difference between the sleazy lawyer and Ken Ham, I'd say that the lawyer's argument is entirely disingenuous, he is simply saying whatever he thinks people might believe, whether he knows it to be true or not. Whereas I believe Ham is attempting to represent the truth as he genuinely believes it, and the problems with his argument are far deeper than simple dishonesty.
But both Ham and the hypothetical lawyer are very sharp in presenting their cases.
AgeOfEgos wrote: I think that's pretty much spot on. I also think that's a general issue science educators (or debaters I guess) are going to face in the coming years. The complexities certainly outstrip the 'debate' format, where a petitioner is allowed 5 minutes rebuttal--on a subject that would likely take a year+ education to really understand. I think the challenge of educating people in that short of a time period, plus disputing the coming fallacies of Ham....is simply going to be too constrained by time.
I think there comes a point where science needs to change tack on how it presents itself. Right now the standard approach of science to just list what scientists know, and correct the mistaken claims of the creationists, and the result is generally a highly detailed and complex argument, that will confuse most people with some science education, let alone people without.
Instead I think science needs to sell itself on how it works, and what that process has delivered. Instead of explaining the fossil record and how various age dating methods work, what is needed is to explain how science actually works. Explain how it is a process of hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion, with peer review that constantly looks for weaknesses, and how that means if creationists ever came up with some kind of theory that fit the evidence, then it would be science as much as anything else. And more than anything, I think science needs to sell itself on what it has done for the modern world, and how much better our lives have become because of the scientific gadgets that are around us every single day. My biggest concern with creationism is not that some people think something that is very silly, but the ultimate legacy of creationism is to degrade respect for science and what it has done for the world.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/03 04:26:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I think there comes a point where science needs to change tack on how it presents itself. Right now the standard approach of science to just list what scientists know, and correct the mistaken claims of the creationists, and the result is generally a highly detailed and complex argument, that will confuse most people with some science education, let alone people without.
Instead I think science needs to sell itself on how it works, and what that process has delivered. Instead of explaining the fossil record and how various age dating methods work, what is needed is to explain how science actually works. Explain how it is a process of hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion, with peer review that constantly looks for weaknesses, and how that means if creationists ever came up with some kind of theory that fit the evidence, then it would be science as much as anything else. And more than anything, I think science needs to sell itself on what it has done for the modern world, and how much better our lives have become because of the scientific gadgets that are around us every single day. My biggest concern with creationism is not that some people think something that is very silly, but the ultimate legacy of creationism is to degrade respect for science and what it has done for the world.
Critical thinking! If people can learn that figuring out what's true is pretty neat and how to do it then they can use it themselves to help get rid of inaccurate beliefs, which is something faith is completely incapable of doing on its own. And then we end up with iPods and stuff!
Though apparently Ken Ham was a science teacher, of all things, when he lived in Australia.
OT: I was watching Ancient Aliens. They do make some good philosophy arguments. "What if one day we are nothing but myths and gods to other cultures in the stars, when we visit them? How should we conduct ourselves? and how much should we help?"
But then it went into the idea tht Aliens made the grand Canyon
If I believed there was no higher power to anything and it's all random this is what I would be adding to creationism-Evolution threads on the internet:
You do realize that TIME magazine has put some rather unsavory characters as their "Person of The Year" before right? Point being TIME magazine is quite irrelevant.
And I'm not saying Pope Francis is unsavory..in fact I have rather liked all the popes that have held that office since I can remember.
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/03 17:24:09
Though apparently Ken Ham was a science teacher, of all things, when he lived in Australia.
One has to wonder how such a person can be even vaguely involved in science and be a young earther. As much as science doean't go out to disprove the existance of god, it doea quite handily disprove pretty much everything involved in young earth creationism...
I am a Catholic. I do not believe in creationism. Those two things have nothing to do with each other, which is what I was trying to clarify by posting ITT in the first place. "Creationism" means something far more specific than faith in the Christian God. Conflating the two is total nonsense.
with some public speaking talent, nothing more.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
