[_ Old Earth _] Bill Nye v AIG Creation Museum

[Milk-Drops]

One is a fact, and one isn't.One can be observed, and the other cant. That is the difference.
duari remembers Phylogeny: No observable evidence of any kind.

This statement tells me you don't know what phylogeny is when you claim that there is no observed evidences of macro evolution.

Enough to corner you.

So far all you've done is provide quote mines and posted propaganda articles. Meanwhile I was a Biology major with quite a few hours of lab work and several connections with professors. We aren't even in the same room.

There are debates on the specifics of a species as well.

At least mine is accepted on an academic level and has a stable enough definition that I can write a research paper on it. While kind has no set definition and was thrown out hundreds of years ago.

A dog and a whale are different kinds. An Owl and a Cow are different kinds. Some will argue that organisms of the same Kind share the same common ancestry.

Then you should have no problem explaining why dogs and owls are different kinds. I can explain why Dogs and Owls are different species and go all the way back to domain. Mainly because I'm willing to explain myself and intersted in actually educating people. Instead of just trying to troll people on the internet and claim victory.

If a disagreement in vocabulary is your problem, then I am sure we can come to a mutual agreement at some point.

Define kind.

 

[Barbarian]

I never said the facts work in the creationists favor, but proposed that it should be explored and taught as the other option in the public school system.

No more than geocentrism (also a religious issue) should be taught. We are guaranteed religious freedom by the constitution, so no one can teach it to children in public school.

Micro-Evolution is a fact. We can observe it.

So is macroevolution. The first speciation was documented in the early 20th century.

Creationists don't (and shouldn't) have any problem or dispute about this. Macro-Evolution is not a fact.

See above. It's been directly observed. Yes, I know that the professional creationists have re-defined "macroevolution" to mean "whatever level of evolution we can't hope to see in a lifetime." But everyone knows why they did that.

You say there is "zero" bias going on, yet I quoted an evolutionary scientist who had a bias.

BTW, I did some graduate work at Iowa State. Gonzales didn't get tenure, because he essentially quit doing research, and never published. No one gets tenure under those circumstances. I happen to have taken some classes under a creationist, who was tenured, at that school. You've been given some false indoctrination on Gonzales.

What does that do to your statement? I also offered to quote more people with the same "bias." Yet that seemed to go unchallenged.

Because of the record of creationists editing "quotes" to make it appear that people believe what they do not, you won't get much traction with quotes. Facts will help, but quotes generally won't. Let's agree that we won't quote anyone unless we've actually read the entire article or book from which the quote originally came. Fair?

 

[duari91]

This statement tells me you don't know what phylogeny is when you claim that there is no observed evidences of macro evolution.


So far all you've done is provide quote mines and posted propaganda articles. Meanwhile I was a Biology major with quite a few hours of lab work and several connections with professors. We aren't even in the same room.


At least mine is accepted on an academic level and has a stable enough definition that I can write a research paper on it. While kind has no set definition and was thrown out hundreds of years ago.

Then you should have no problem explaining why dogs and owls are different kinds. I can explain why Dogs and Owls are different species and go all the way back to domain. Mainly because I'm willing to explain myself and intersted in actually educating people. Instead of just trying to troll people on the internet and claim victory.

Define kind.

Look, I can understand you are upset. I saw the personal attacks and you are unable to hold a conversation at this point. Maybe cool down for a bit and PM me when you are ready. I think I mentioned that 3 times in my last post.

Your reaction isn't proving your cause. That is, if I am even 'qualified' to have a discussion with you. Let's see. I'll be expecting your message friend.

 

[duari91]

No more than geocentrism (also a religious issue) should be taught. We are guaranteed religious freedom by the constitution, so no one can teach it to children in public school.



So is macroevolution. The first speciation was documented in the early 20th century.



See above. It's been directly observed. Yes, I know that the professional creationists have re-defined "macroevolution" to mean "whatever level of evolution we can't hope to see in a lifetime." But everyone knows why they did that.



BTW, I did some graduate work at Iowa State. Gonzales didn't get tenure, because he essentially quit doing research, and never published. No one gets tenure under those circumstances. I happen to have taken some classes under a creationist, who was tenured, at that school. You've been given some false indoctrination on Gonzales.



Because of the record of creationists editing "quotes" to make it appear that people believe what they do not, you won't get much traction with quotes. Facts will help, but quotes generally won't. Let's agree that we won't quote anyone unless we've actually read the entire article or book from which the quote originally came. Fair?

Barb, at least you believe God did it. I have more respect for that then the other option. For the record I am not indoctrinated, and I am always open to accept honest information.

I'm sure you know how I would respond. I doubt we will reach an agreement though.

 

[Sparkey]

I've read some reviews of the debate and found that both men were gracious and respectful of each other and kept it very civil. Though my personal opinion is that Bill Nye shouldn't have accepted this debate in the first place. My personal position is that Creationis, in itself is not science, but a religious position with science used to justify it. Just like Naturalism or Skepticism. I have nothing against people being creationists, but for the most part creationism will never be accepted as fully being science.

From what I understand from the reviews is that those that agreed with Hamm from the beginning were not persuaded by Nye, and Hamm spent most of the debate changing the names of terms, rephrasing terms, and referring back to "historical science" when put into a corner.

I've long grown tired of these debates because I've learned enough from Young earth Creationists, old Earth Creationists, Naturalists, and Skeptics to know that the debate has been the same topics for the last 20 years.

For the most part I would agree with you in that I do accept the biblical account as God's Word. No, I'm not trying to pick a fight with Barbarian or others and not suggesting that they don't -- but am saying directly that my belief is an article of faith, not science.

Further, I don't need to find a way to use scientific discoveries to justify faith. Faith itself is a gift from God. That's enough. We have more than that too because God states those who trust Him will not be ashamed. If it were impossible for anyone to believe then that would be another thing altogether. The real message that I hear from the Word of God has more to do with brother getting along with brother and both following God first. That's a lesson that all can learn and all should master.