(February 4, 2014 at 9:29 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nye is riding the "appeal to personal incredulity" horse pretty hard….

Maybe, but Ham will win the race by a mile, he's riding it so hard.

He outright lied about argon and potassium in dating. Argon is an inert gas, it would not be trapped in rocks during rock formation, the amount of argon is a good measure of decay.

Not all rocks can be radiometrically dated, it's more complex than creationists make it out to be.


"LOL fossils show brain tumours, but bible says man were healthy back then", and Ham is trying to use this as an argument to say that the bible is right because the only person who were there was god.

You fucking kidding me?

(February 4, 2014 at 9:30 pm)Napoléon Wrote: Just tuned in, the stupid coming out of Ham's mouth is already fucking unbearable. "There was plenty of room on the ark"... how is this even a serious debate?

Indeed. The moment he said that the only way to know what happened in the past is to accept the word of the only one who was there, the debate should have ended.

He's not even trying to pretend to be scientific at this point.

I don't think it is a debate per se.

More like a running advertisement for AIG-Ham-Creation museum and Nye trying to persuade people not to abandon science.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:24 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 4, 2014 at 9:21 pm)Asimm Wrote: The theory to use it to refute against evolution was, and it still falls short to all the studies of evolution that over shadow it and still remain the top scientific theory.

Are you suggesting that observable rates do not count if they contradict the Darwinian paradigm? You're starting to sound rather religious.

Oh, so if it's observable and sides with your argument it's now viable, got it.
All I was saying is that genetic entropy is now closely connected to a creationist, and shows bias.

"The bible says ...."

And

"You weren't there!"

Repeated over and over with different words.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:27 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Actually, just to be clear, the comment to which I was responding was itself in response to DP's reply to your question "If you can walk a mile can you walk a billion miles?" He wasn't making the claim you just asserted.

Sure he was; he was arguing that “alleles can change a little over time, therefore alleles can change a lot over time.”

Quote: I was pointing out that there is a difference between an individual walking a mile and generations of that individual completeing a journey of a billion miles.

As I already pointed out, there’s a limit to how many generations you can have just like there is a limitation to how long I can live.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:30 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Maybe, but Ham will win the race by a mile, he's riding it so hard.

He hasn’t made that form of argument actually.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:32 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: He outright lied about argon and potassium in dating. Argon is an inert gas, it would not be trapped in rocks during rock formation, the amount of argon is a good measure of decay.

Actually Potassium/Argon dating is very unreliable.

Quote: Not all rocks can be radiometrically dated, it's more complex than creationists make it out to be.

Sedimentary rocks cannot be.

Quote:"LOL fossils show brain tumours, but bible says man were healthy back then", and Ham is trying to use this as an argument to say that the bible is right because the only person who were there was god.

No, he was refuting old-Earth creationism, try to keep up.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:33 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Indeed. The moment he said that the only way to know what happened in the past is to accept the word of the only one who was there, the debate should have ended.

Indeed. Deduction trumps induction.

(February 4, 2014 at 9:39 pm)Asimm Wrote: Oh, so if it's observable and sides with your argument it's now viable, got it.
All I was saying is that genetic entropy is now closely connected to a creationist, and shows bias.

So I can arbitrarily discount anything closely tied to a Darwinist? Well that’s easy enough.

The thing that annoys me most with this (and indeed makes me pretty damn sad) is that people even entertain this bollocks. That there's going to be people in the audience listening to Ham as though he has anything logical to say whatsoever.

Damn it, had to leave right after Nye talked about the Wyoming and Noah's Ark, WhatdidImiss? WhatdidImiss?