(February 5, 2014 at 10:48 am)whateverist Wrote: I would have liked to see Nye go after Ham's absurd distinction between science done in the present versus science regarding the past.
The particularly frustrating thing about that is that the rebuttal is entirely obvious: just accept Ham's distinction and move on from there.
Just go with it, so that now we've got two claims of "historical science" from two distinct camps, both on equal footing, something Ham wouldn't have the wherewithal to disagree with. Surely he'd agree with the idea that things that happened in the past leave traces into the present, it'd be absurd not to. All Nye has to do is remind the audience that these traces are evidence, and given that we've now got two claims from historical science, that evidence can be used to add weight to one, the other, or neither.
Not only does this get the debate back on track and away from Ham's diversionary handwaving, it's a relatively simple matter to show that the majority of the evidence agrees with one historical science claim, and not the other.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
