3 of 5
3
Upcoming debate…Nye vs Ham on creationism
Posted: 07 February 2014 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2007-08-27

Fair enough Adocatus I should comment as the OP.  I believe both should be commended for their composure during the whole debate.  I felt they presented a good example of how to maintain simple respect for one another despite their differences in belief.

As far as the content of what each had to say Ham easily presented better explanations and references than Nye.  Nye mainly made 2 points both personal and unrelated to Creationism imo.
One was the wonder of creation and the joy of discovery which are merely emotional plea’s for his views and the other being the importance of young people choosing science/engineering for the future of our country’s economic prosperity.  Valid as they were those repeated kinds of answers didn’t pertain or establish evolution as a solid science backed alternative to the historical record of Christianity/Genesis explanation.

So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well.  For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better.  It only comes apart/decays.  Like ape to man or fish to mammal.  Zero in the fossil record either.


I’ll leave the fence sitters, which if I go by the comments in this thread are the only people that were maybe helped by this debate, a great book suggestion:

There is (another) book ....called The Genesis Record by Henry Morris.  It’s a large marvelous expansion and commentary on the Genesis story of origins/beginnings of so much of what is debated today.

I realize that the unbelieving side wants to discount or disprove the literal Genesis account because then they can dismiss the rest of the Bible.  Problem is the only way to do that is to go counter to their own reason and ignore that they are miraculously and fearfully made in God’s image having mind, will and emotion and that no science can or ever will be able to explain that sanely and sensibly otherwise.

[ Edited: 07 February 2014 01:37 PM by rodin46 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2014 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
rodin46 - 07 February 2014 01:25 PM

Fair enough Adocatus I should comment as the OP.  I believe both should be commended for their composure during the whole debate.  I felt they presented a good example of how to maintain simple respect for one another despite their differences in belief.

As far as the content of what each had to say Ham easily presented better explanations and references than Nye.  Nye mainly made 2 points both personal and unrelated to Creationism imo.
One was the wonder of creation and the joy of discovery which are merely emotional plea’s for his views and the other being the importance of young people choosing science/engineering for the future of our country’s economic prosperity.  Valid as they were those repeated kinds of answers didn’t pertain or establish evolution as a solid science backed alternative to the historical record of Christianity/Genesis explanation.

So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well.  For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better.  It only comes apart/decays.  Like ape to man or fish to mammal.  Zero in the fossil record either.


I’ll leave the fence sitters, which if I go by the comments in this thread are the only people that were maybe helped by this debate, a great book suggestion:

There is (another) book ....called The Genesis Record by Henry Morris.  It’s a large marvelous expansion and commentary on the Genesis story of origins/beginnings of so much of what is debated today.

I realize that the unbelieving side wants to discount or disprove the literal Genesis account because then they can dismiss the rest of the Bible.  Problem is the only way to do that is to go counter to their own reason and ignore that they are miraculously and fearfully made in God’s image having mind, will and emotion and that no science can or ever will be able to explain that sanely and sensibly otherwise.


Monday morning quarterbacking is common, but it changes nothing.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 February 2014 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
rodin46 - 07 February 2014 01:25 PM

So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well.  For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better.  It only comes apart/decays.  Like ape to man or fish to mammal.  Zero in the fossil record either.

This is a common misstatement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics by proponents of intelligent design, The 2nd law applies only to a closed system. The net entropy of a closed system must increase over time but within that system there can and will be places where entropy decreases and other places where it increases. As long as the total entropy of the system increases over time it satisfies the second law of thermodynamics.

If you are going to apply the law to the earth you can not look only at the earth since it is not a closed system. Energy is delivered to the earth from the sun and on a smaller scale from the surrounding universe. If energy is put into a system from an outside source then entropy can in fact decrease which is what we observe here on earth as a result of the energy received from the sun.

All you have to do is look around and see how living organisms reduce entropy every day. As long as energy is added to the system from outside this will continue. It does not vioate the second law. Creationists would know that if they actually understood science instead of taking things out of context.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 08:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  908
Joined  2005-01-14
rodin46 - 07 February 2014 01:25 PM

For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better.  It only comes apart/decays. 

You’ve got to be kidding me! Stopped Nye in his tracks?  I take it you’ve never seen an egg hatch into a bird!  That’s the simplest most accessible example I can think of!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2014 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

Redin, you started life as a single cell zygote, then went through embryo, fetus, infant, child, and now adult.  While you may feel you are decaying as an adult, do you really feel that first stage of zygote to infant was a demonstration of you coming apart and decaying?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2014 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  259
Joined  2013-12-20
rodin46 - 07 February 2014 01:25 PM

So it was ok but I saw opportunities for both to put forth their respective teachings but neither did that very well.  For instance when the 2nd Law of Thermo came up I could have stopped Nye in his tracks and left him unable to respond with anything from science that would refute the observable and testable fact that nothing materially in the universe organizes for the better.  It only comes apart/decays.  Like ape to man or fish to mammal.  Zero in the fossil record either.

You obviously don’t understand what the 2nd law is.

It states that in a closed system disorder will tend to increase.

The Earth isn’t a closed system, most of the energy that life utilizes comes from the sun where entropy(disorder) is steadily increasing as thermonuclear energy potential steadily decreases as hydrogen is fused into helium. The seeming increase in order of living organisms on Earth through evolution is at the expense of greater disorder at the source of most energy in the solar system, the Sun.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2014 05:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2007-08-27

I’ve taken plenty of science/eng courses from Wayne State University and other schools.  4 yrs worth.  Your above examples/arguments are more along the lines of propaganda not actual science.

Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here.  You fit right in with the people this site mentions that don’t understand what they are talking about.


http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp    and check out the home page there too for other interesting topics.

[ Edited: 12 February 2014 05:32 PM by rodin46 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2014 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15
rodin46 - 12 February 2014 05:18 PM

Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here. 

True.Origins
LOL  LOL  LOL

The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).  This doctrine is abundantly evident in much material advocating the Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution origins model, including—but not limited to—the “Talk.Origins” newsgroup and the “Talk.Origins Archive” website.

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.  This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

The contributions posted at this site give some expression to the “other side”—dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most advocates of evolutionism, namely:

When’s the last time “True” Origins offered their take on science to a critical panel of actual physicists?
You know like in the form of a scientific paper.


Science in a vacuum is an ugly thing.  smirk

[ Edited: 12 February 2014 05:31 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2014 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  259
Joined  2013-12-20
rodin46 - 12 February 2014 05:18 PM

I’ve taken plenty of science/eng courses from Wayne State University and other schools.  4 yrs worth.  Your above examples/arguments are more along the lines of propaganda not actual science.

Study this site and find your own multiple errors in applying the 2nd law here.  You fit right in with the people this site mentions that don’t understand what they are talking about.

I’d ask for my money back if I was you.

It states clearly that the Second Law applies to isolated non-gravitational systems where differences in temperature, concentration and pressure will decrease over time.

As has been explained, the Earth isn’t an isolated system in terms of resources that make life possible. There is a constant influx of material from space and a huge amount of EM radiation from the Sun. The overall entropy of the Universe may be increasing, but there are many pockets where order does increase for a period of time.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2014 06:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5187
Joined  2010-06-16

Fuzzy is correct, Rodin.  Ask for your money back.  As a chemist dealing with the laws of thermodynamics for about sixty years, I can assure you that you do NOT understand the 2nd law.  In fact, you have it bass ackwards.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 February 2014 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

I doubt that the school was the problem.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 12:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4142
Joined  2008-08-14

I think the debate was worthwhile in whole.
A debate is an event that is ultimately trying to change the views of the debaters and the audience.

So if we look at the two sides and their audiences we can see that there’s room for Ham’s audience to shift towards
Nye’s viewpoint.
There isn’t any room for Nye’s audience to shift to Ham’s viewpoint.

Some in Ham’s audience might have come away with doubts or second thoughts about his position.
Nye’s audience is not going to come away with any doubts or second thoughts about his position.
This holds especially true for “neutral observers”.

So in the end I think we could project Nye’s positions as having more impact. Definitely a net increase in “converts” or “second thoughts”.
Especially when Ham’s position would seem to stretch the allowable tolerances of many moderate religious folk’s logic and reason.
The Pat Robertson response being one example.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 03:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  374
Joined  2012-02-02

Before the debate, a reporter asked people to write down the questions they’d like to have answered at the debate.  He then posted the pictures on the internet.  As you can imagine, the internet has been having a field day “translating” the questions.  (I love the comment someone made, “If we came from British people, then why are their still British people?”)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 07:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2888
Joined  2011-08-15

That was hilarious CT! It’s hard to believe that people their age are still so duped by religious belief that they’ll grasp at anything to disprove imperical evidence. Could we call them Hamites? Sounds biblical; they might like that. And maybe when he gets his arc ready they can slip inside, wait for the deluge, have sex with their leader and shovel merde till their heart’s content.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 February 2014 01:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  813
Joined  2009-10-21

The TrueOrigin Archive comprises an intellectually honest response to what in fairness can only be described as evolutionism—the doctrine of strict philosophical naturalism as a necessary presupposition in matters of science history (i.e., origins).

This is the crux of the biscuit. I’ve run into this with several staunch believers lately. Even outside the religion context, anti-vaxxers, 9/11 folks, anything. It’s a failure to deal with the idea that evidence must be invoked to show that evidence is necessary. It’s like we are living 80,000 years ago when there were different types of homo sapiens walking around. Some can handle this idea that we can’t prove anything. That it might be true that we’re wired into some Matrix with no real thoughts of our own, but if you apply a little logic and look at the evidence, that is extremely unlikely. They have learned to put that in the background and gone on with the business of creating an infrastructure to support life on this planet.

Others can’t handle that, so they create all sorts of mythical realities to comfort themselves and explain the as yet unexplained. I just hope they don’t blow the rest of us up.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3