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.
So did anyone (anyone? anywhere?) go into this debate on one side of it, but emerge from it having been convinced that the other side was wrong? Anyone? At all?
Jimsolo wrote: So did anyone (anyone? anywhere?) go into this debate on one side of it, but emerge from it having been convinced that the other side was wrong? Anyone? At all?
Pft. Please. What do you think this is? Some cartoon land where everyone learns their lesson by the end of the episode?
Peregrine wrote: the basic problem with Ham's argument is that radioactive dating methods only work within a certain range of ages
The trouble is, AiG claims the purported wood sample was dated -- rather than the radiocarbon dating returning the result of "infinite," i.e., too old to judge.
If you take a look at Snelling's work, however, you find that he just assumes wood can survive being engulfed magma. He puts forward the faux argument that this is possible because the wood was wet and the outer parts protected the inner parts. But if that were true, we should expect to find a lot of fossilized wood (among other fossils) in basalt ... and we don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: So did anyone (anyone? anywhere?) go into this debate on one side of it, but emerge from it having been convinced that the other side was wrong?
I think these debates are more about people who for whatever reason are not already convinced either way.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/10 00:58:58
Jimsolo wrote: So did anyone (anyone? anywhere?) go into this debate on one side of it, but emerge from it having been convinced that the other side was wrong?
I think these debates are more about people who for whatever reason are not already convinced either way.
Earlier, I predicted that while such people might exist, none of them were going to tune in to such a debate. Personally, I think 'debates' like this are more about ego-stroking and self-aggrandizement than actually convincing anyone of anything.
I am legitimately curious, though, as to whether or not anyone tuned in to watch who was either A) actually undecided on the issue and came to a conclusion based on the debate, or B) already on a side, but changed their mind as a consequence of this debate.
Jimsolo wrote: So did anyone (anyone? anywhere?) go into this debate on one side of it, but emerge from it having been convinced that the other side was wrong?
I think these debates are more about people who for whatever reason are not already convinced either way.
Earlier, I predicted that while such people might exist, none of them were going to tune in to such a debate. Personally, I think 'debates' like this are more about ego-stroking and self-aggrandizement than actually convincing anyone of anything.
I am legitimately curious, though, as to whether or not anyone tuned in to watch who was either A) actually undecided on the issue and came to a conclusion based on the debate, or B) already on a side, but changed their mind as a consequence of this debate.
This picture, posted earlier in the thread, sums up both positions quite well.
Ham's side presented nothing in the form of evidence, and there's nothing Nye's could say or show that would ever convince someone like Ham.
Manchu wrote: The trouble is, AiG claims the purported wood sample was dated -- rather than the radiocarbon dating returning the result of "infinite," i.e., too old to judge.
But a reading of "infinite" is exactly what AIG got, they're just too stupid and/or dishonest to understand it. The claimed result of 45,000 years is at the upper limit of where carbon 14 dating can provide any useful information. By that point the carbon 14 has decayed away beyond our ability to measure it accurately. So I suspect that if you look carefully at the lab equipment you'll discover that because of random error* (electrical noise in the instruments, trace contamination, etc) a genuine 45,000 year old sample and a 30 million year old sample are indistinguishable. It's a case of garbage in, garbage out: you can put a sample in the machine and the machine will tell you something, but that information isn't useful for anything. A legitimate scientist would know that they're dealing with a result of "too old to judge", but Ken Ham would rather lie and keep his wealth and power.
*Electrical example: say you're trying to measure the voltage at a given point in a circuit. Even if the probes aren't touching the circuit you'll still often get a reading of 0.0000000000000001 V on the meter, just because of random error. But you know to discard that "result" because it is obviously wrong, and figure out where your problem is. You don't just mindlessly record a value of 0.0000000000000001 V as if it was a real value unless you know that you're dealing with a circuit where that is within the expected range of values.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jimsolo wrote: I am legitimately curious, though, as to whether or not anyone tuned in to watch who was either A) actually undecided on the issue and came to a conclusion based on the debate, or B) already on a side, but changed their mind as a consequence of this debate.
I suspect you might find a few cases of B eventually. Young-earth creationism, like most extremist religious beliefs, depends on keeping people ignorant so that they don't accidentally encounter anything that would reveal the truth. For example, it's a lot easier to lie and rant about how "evolutionists" don't have any examples of transitional fossils if you're lying to someone who isn't going to go do a few minutes of research and discover that the list of transitional fossils we've discovered is so long that you could easily fill an entire textbook with them just to cover the basics. So I wouldn't be surprised if a few seeds of doubt were planted as a result of that debate, and eventually some of those people learn more and abandon young-earth creationism.
Needless to say Ken Ham didn't convince anyone. It's very hard to convince anyone when all of your "facts" are blatantly wrong (if not outright lies), and you openly admit that nothing could ever make you even consider changing your mind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 01:40:45
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.
Manchu wrote: Peregrine, take a look at the AiG link I posted.
I did. And it's pretty obvious that what AIG did was set up a "test" that they knew would provide ridiculous results.
They claim the labs returned actual age results even when AiG pushed on the issue.
But it's still garbage in, garbage out. Even if you stubbornly insist on getting the lab to tell you what the machines said you're still stuck with the obvious problem that you did the test on a sample that you're pretty sure is outside the age range where carbon 14 dating gives any meaningful results. AIG did the equivalent of getting a 9999 "reading" from a lab, pushing them until they admitted that yes, the machine did say 9999, and then publishing it as if the number has any meaning.
In fact, let's quote from AIG's own footnotes:
"They did suggest the possibility of some variable contamination of the samples with atmospheric argon, but definitely not contamination introduced by their laboratory procedures."
IOW, the supposed "confidence" of the labs is pretty clearly a lie by AIG.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 02:28:24
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.
Well I'm a big ol' negative nellie, and don't think this debate accomplished much save for letting two arrogant pufferfish puff up in front of a bunch of their supporters. However, unlike either of these two yahoos, I'm willing to let evidence change my mind. To that end, please take a moment to let me know how this debate changed (or didn't change) your mind by stopping by my little poll.
Fafnir wrote: Bill Nye is very clear on the fact that the presence of evidence would be enough to change his outlook.
The problem is that Ham has none to present.
Yes Fafnir, but I don't believe him. His celebrity image is predicated on it not being true. If religion is proved correct tomorrow, 'The Science Guy' is flipping burgers at McDonald's. It costs him nothing to SAY 'oh, if you can prove the existence of a theology that by it's very definition defies proof, then I'll believe it.' Even if it's correct, you can't prove it.
(I'm not taking a stand on this issue, by the way. I just think Nye is equally uncompromising as Ham.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 04:04:35
Bill Nye's work has always been about making science interesting, approachable and explainable. Were the world of science to suddenly be changed, he wouldn't be out of a job, he'd just have something different to explain.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 04:24:15
Jimsolo wrote: (I just think Nye is equally uncompromising as Ham.)
I'm glad you're willing to make up your own little story about how you think he'd react as justification for your opinion. IMO Nye, like most reasonable people, would be willing to admit that they were wrong if there was ever proof that creationism was right. The fact that there has yet to be even the slightest hint of credible proof does not mean that he'd reject it if it ever did appear.
And no, Ken Ham's theology doesn't defy proof. He is very clear about his claims that there is an abundance of proof for his "theories". The problem is that no such proof exists, no matter how much he lies and pretends that it does.
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.
generalgrog wrote: Genesis was written much way before the Greeks even were Greek. There are many accounts that are similar to the Biblical acounts, which makes sense if all of humanity is derived from a small group such as Noahs offspring.
I.E. they would all have similar stories as they split off into distinct societies yet have slightly different versions.
GG
It isn't very remarkable at all that large numbers of civilisations based a story around one the greatest elemental forces. It's a bit like pointing out that so many societies have featured the sun in their myths, therefore the Sun god must be real.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote: But like one of the mods on this forum..you get your doctrine from Rome...so it's not like you are not biased either?
I find your combination of pleading to be treated fairly with your willingness to dismiss other people's views based on nothing more than their faith... quite an interesting thing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/02/10 05:43:49
“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.
Fafnir wrote: Bill Nye is very clear on the fact that the presence of evidence would be enough to change his outlook.
The problem is that Ham has none to present.
Yes Fafnir, but I don't believe him. His celebrity image is predicated on it not being true. If religion is proved correct tomorrow, 'The Science Guy' is flipping burgers at McDonald's. It costs him nothing to SAY 'oh, if you can prove the existence of a theology that by it's very definition defies proof, then I'll believe it.' Even if it's correct, you can't prove it.
(I'm not taking a stand on this issue, by the way. I just think Nye is equally uncompromising as Ham.)
Actually no; if the Bible turned out to be able to predict scientific results, Scientists would be EXTREMELY busy, they would have so much more to discover. I dont know why people think that if scientists are proved wrong that they are out of a job or are some how defeated.
In the end it doesnt matter, the whole reason behind this 'debate' was to drum up money for Ham's bible fun house,
No matter what Ham does his funhouse is doomed to fail, hopefully his investors (including the great state of Kentucky) pull their funding and I can get a dino statue for cheap!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 05:54:24
Frankly, I'm a little disappointed the Nye has lowered himself to enter this "debate". He was one of my childhood heroes, and now he is in a public argument with someone who is at best mentally disturbed and at worst a fraud and a liar.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Jimsolo wrote: Yes Fafnir, but I don't believe him. His celebrity image is predicated on it not being true. If religion is proved correct tomorrow, 'The Science Guy' is flipping burgers at McDonald's. It costs him nothing to SAY 'oh, if you can prove the existence of a theology that by it's very definition defies proof, then I'll believe it.' Even if it's correct, you can't prove it.
(I'm not taking a stand on this issue, by the way. I just think Nye is equally uncompromising as Ham.)
There's this truly nutty idea out there in some Christian circles that the angels of heaven could descend to Earth and the atheists and 'evolutionists' would sit there furiously denying the existance of these divine creatures. I think that's kind of similar to what you're doing here - making this assumption that people who don't believe in God have formed that position out of some dogmatic conviction, rather than a lack of observed evidence and personal faith.
That doesn't make atheists more rational or anything that unfortunately too many atheists like to claim all too often, but it is a simple descriptor of what they believe. Absent faith, atheists accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Were there ever to be evidence of the supernatural, then their opinions would change.
“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.
Fafnir wrote: Bill Nye is very clear on the fact that the presence of evidence would be enough to change his outlook.
The problem is that Ham has none to present.
Yes Fafnir, but I don't believe him. His celebrity image is predicated on it not being true. If religion is proved correct tomorrow, 'The Science Guy' is flipping burgers at McDonald's. It costs him nothing to SAY 'oh, if you can prove the existence of a theology that by it's very definition defies proof, then I'll believe it.' Even if it's correct, you can't prove it.
(I'm not taking a stand on this issue, by the way. I just think Nye is equally uncompromising as Ham.)
You're talking nonsense. One of them (Nye) quite clearly uses evidence to inform his opinions, the other (Ham) has made it quite clear that no amount of evidence could change his mind. Science wouldn't stop existing if someone proved evolution to be incorrect it would just have to adjust to a new set of facts and theories. Bill Nye is not an evolutionary biologist so he would not at all be out of a job if evolution was proven wrong, he would also not be out of a job if God was proven to exist as God existing wouldn't invalidate science.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 06:49:06
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Science isn't about proving you are correct its about learning what correct.
Really love this clip from Feynman
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 07:03:09
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Which is what I was trying to say.
If we have lots of science today that says "this rock should be blue" and then we actually find that rock and see that it is red. Then we wouldn't just stick to our scientific knowledge that the rock should be blue.
If we have lots of science today that says "this rock should be blue" and then we actually find that rock and see that it is red. Then we wouldn't just stick to our scientific knowledge that the rock should be blue.
Well, ideally we would. The truth is the incomes, professional reputations and egos are staked on rocks being the colour that people claimed they would be, so science doesn't shift quite so quickly, but 'one funeral at a time', as the saying goes.
But while that means it is an imperfect system, as all human systems are, it remains in the only game in town for figuring out how the natural world works.
“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.
I find your combination of pleading to be treated fairly with your willingness to dismiss other people's views based on nothing more than their faith... quite an interesting thing.
That's ok keep taking me out of context, as if I am dismissing the views compared to the way in which they are presented.
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Huh?
Scientists are usually never wrong?, yet the science can be wrong?
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 11:46:22
d-usa wrote:
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Huh?
Scientists are usually never wrong?, yet the science can be wrong?
GG
That's what happens when you don't start with an idea and then build an entire discipline around it that only exists to support the predetermined result and which ignores all evidence to the contrary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/10 11:56:59
d-usa wrote:
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Huh?
Scientists are usually never wrong?, yet the science can be wrong?
GG
That's what happens when you don't start with an idea and then build an entire discipline around it that only exists to support the predetermined result and which ignores all evidence to the contrary.
yeah but if the science is wrong...isn't the scientist also wrong?
Here is one for ya...
In 1996, scientists at NASA declared that a 6.3-ounce rock, broken off from a Mars meteorite discovered in Antarctica in 1984, contained flecks of chemical compounds— polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, magnetite, and iron sulfide— that suggested the existence of bacteria on the Red Planet 3.6 billion years ago. "August 7, 1996, could go down as one of the most important dates in human history," intoned one newspaper report. But within two years the theory began to crack. Traces of amino acids found in the rock, crucial to life, were also found in the surrounding Antarctic ice. More damning, other non-Martian rocks— rocks from the moon, where it is clear life does not exist— showed the same "evidence" of life. By November 1998 an article in Science declared "most researchers agree that the case for life on Mars is shakier than ever."
d-usa wrote:
Scientists are usually never wrong. If the science itself turns out wrong then they just keep on working on doing science to make sure that our understanding of things keeps on matching what we actually know.
Huh?
Scientists are usually never wrong?, yet the science can be wrong?
GG
That's what happens when you don't start with an idea and then build an entire discipline around it that only exists to support the predetermined result and which ignores all evidence to the contrary.
yeah but if the science is wrong...isn't the scientist also wrong?
Here is one for ya...
In 1996, scientists at NASA declared that a 6.3-ounce rock, broken off from a Mars meteorite discovered in Antarctica in 1984, contained flecks of chemical compounds— polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, magnetite, and iron sulfide— that suggested the existence of bacteria on the Red Planet 3.6 billion years ago. "August 7, 1996, could go down as one of the most important dates in human history," intoned one newspaper report. But within two years the theory began to crack. Traces of amino acids found in the rock, crucial to life, were also found in the surrounding Antarctic ice. More damning, other non-Martian rocks— rocks from the moon, where it is clear life does not exist— showed the same "evidence" of life. By November 1998 an article in Science declared "most researchers agree that the case for life on Mars is shakier than ever."
And the scientist were not wrong. They were right based on what they knew at the time, that there were chemical compounds that may suggest that there were bacteria on the Red Planet x number of years ago. Your own recollection of the event makes it clear that they stated "here is what we know, here is what we think may be the cause of that".
As more studies were done, and more data collected, and more science happened, they found out that the suggestion that these compounds came from mars was less likely than before.
So the scientist were not wrong. They were 100% right based on the data that they had at the time. And as the data changed, the interpretation changed. You will notice that they never went "we have definitive proof that there was life on Mars" and then "we now have definitive proof that there was never life on Mars".
The scientists would have been wrong if they looked at the 1998 data and decided to come up with the 1996 conclusion of what the evidence met. They would have been wrong if they ignored the 1998 evidence and decided to stick with their 1996 conclusion. They would have been wrong if they decided that they already know the outcome in advance (totally life on Mars) and decided to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
But no, your scenario of "they made a theory based on 1996 data and then changed the theory when they got new data in 1998" doesn't mean that the scientists were wrong. It means the exact opposite. That science adapts and conforms as new evidence is discovered.
To that end, please take a moment to let me know how this debate changed (or didn't change) your mind by 
