BILL NYE VS KEN HAM: TONIGHT AT 7 PM

[Esquilax]

How do you know when something is in fact an error?

19th Century: “The Universe has a finite beginning!”
Early 20th Century: “Sorry, we were wrong- the Universe has always existed!”
Late 20th Century: “Sorry again, we were wrong about being wrong; the Universe definitely had a finite beginning!”

We can't know that, because we're not perfect. All we can do is hope to be as correct as possible at the time.

You’re proving my point; would you expect an infallible account of history and purpose to change? I wouldn’t.

You do understand that your account is demonstrably fallible according to the evidence, and the only thing propping up its supposed infallibility is your unreasoned faith, right? I mean, you did say before that strictly based on the evidence, the earth is older than the bible would indicate.

Who is more likely to be telling the truth, the child who has consistently given you the same story every time you ask him for it or the child who changes his story every time you ask him?

And if the story the first child was telling you was that he can fly and shoot ice cream out of his butt, and the second child kept getting new information every time you asked him? Doesn't that change the scales, there?

It’s not merely an assertion it’s an axiom. If the Bible were indeed infallible it’d certainly be the only infallible source we have correct? Then how could you possibly demonstrate its fallibility when all you have are fallible means? In my example above, there is no way to prove that the first child is fallible by appealing to the second child who always changes his story.

So, essentially, because science can't be one hundred percent right, you'll always assume it's wrong when it contradicts a book that claims it's one hundred percent right?

How much more dishonest can you get?

Whose? Yours or mine?

"No, you!" -Statler Waldorf, 2014.

Again, it matters where you start from. Start with the Bible and the Earth is young, start somewhere else and you’ll end up with a different age.

Start from an unjustified presupposition, young earth. Start from the evidence, old earth.

They are not nonsensical at all, knowledge and science presuppose that God exists.

Don't be ridiculous. Honestly, that's just insulting that you think any of us are stupid enough to buy that, you ought to be ashamed.

Asserting the evidence “points” to anything is what is nonsensical. When interpreted within a Biblical conceptual scheme the evidence points to a young Earth.

And how much of that biblical scheme, would you say, involves disregarding any evidence that seems to contradict the bible?

[DeistPaladin]

Without an exterior standard to measure it by how do you know it is improving?

Because of how well science works in producing the results we want.

Changes and revisions (to the Bible) by whom and when?

Mark chapter 16, after verse 8, is one undisputed example. The ending to the original Gospel got a later rewrite. By whom is a good question. We don't even know who wrote Mark, let alone who wrote the new ending.

Remember Bart Ehrman? The guy you keep holding up on that grand pedestal as the infallible arbiter of all that is true? Yeah, that guy. He's written extensively about how the Bible was changed over time.

How do you know when something is in fact an error?

Evidence.

19th Century: “The Universe has a finite beginning!”
Early 20th Century: “Sorry, we were wrong- the Universe has always existed!”
Late 20th Century: “Sorry again, we were wrong about being wrong; the Universe definitely had a finite beginning!”

New facts = new conclusion. This is how I went from being pro-life to pro-choice. We learn new things and adjust our conclusions accordingly. What you deride as a weakness is in fact a strength.

You’re proving my point; would you expect an infallible account of history and purpose to change? I wouldn’t.

Who said science was infallible. Words like that belong with a religious ideology.

Who is more likely to be telling the truth, the child who has consistently given you the same story every time you ask him for it or the child who changes his story every time you ask him?

Who is more likely to be right? The student who starts with the data, forms a hypothesis based on the data and then tests the hypothesis and submits the testing to fellow students to see if they get the same results and then forms a theory or...
the student that starts with the conclusion, calls it an "axiom" and then looks for data to support it?

It’s not merely an assertion it’s an axiom. If the Bible were indeed infallible it’d certainly be the only infallible source we have correct? Then how could you possibly demonstrate its fallibility when all you have are fallible means?

So is an "axiom" a bare assertion "proven" by circular reasoning?

Again, it matters where you start from. Start with the Bible and the Earth is young, start somewhere else and you’ll end up with a different age.

How about starting with the data and then drawing conclusions from it instead of starting with the conclusion, calling it an "axiom" and then looking for reasons to believe it?

They are not nonsensical at all, knowledge and science presuppose that God exists.

You keep asserting that, and calling it another of your "axioms", but I have yet to see any support for that assertion.

Yes we have laws regulating adultery. It’s permitted under the law and yet there’s all sorts of regulations concerning prenuptial agreements, child custody, and so on.

Unlike Yahweh, our secular government is not (or should not be) concerned with personal lives but nonetheless, our society does not approve of adultery and an adulterer will be at a disadvantage in a civil case of divorce. Even pre-nups may be thrown out by a judge sympathetic to the mistreatment of a spouse. You've picked a bad example to make your case that Yahweh regulated polygamy while secretly despising the practice and wishing that his chosen people would knock it off.

Paradox? Certain moral truths are part of the created ordinance and obvious to all, monogamy is one of them.

Apparently not so "obvious" to the "righteous" leaders of the "chosen people". From Abraham to Solomon, I can't think of any monogamous leaders or kings from the OT. Perhaps you can cite an example for me? Surely if the virtue were so obvious, at least one king from the OT practiced monogamy.

I do (know you better), which is precisely why I get paranoid (when you cite the Bible).

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was painful for you when I hit you with some inconvenient verses. If there's a way I can be more gentle about it, let me know.

You skipped a step, where in the verse does it say that David only sinned once?

Re-read the verse. It does say David only strayed from Yahweh's will with Uriah and his wife.

Nope, if you are going to discuss the Bible with a Christian then the entire Bible is fair game.

But we were discussing polygamy in the OT. However, if you insist on discussing the NT, please explain why Yahweh changed his mind.

I see no contradiction in Mark 10, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

One says "never" and the other says "except in the case of...". I think this qualifies as a contradiction.

Adam and Eve. Apparently you have not read Genesis for a while.

Chapter and verse?

Well I clearly stated that I was referring to the created ordinance in Genesis 1, but this verse supports my position as well. Wife? Why does it say wife and not wives?

Where does it say you're not allowed to cleave again?

That seemed to be the ancient Hebrews' interpretation. You'll pardon me if I consider them and not you the expert on what Yahweh really meant, I hope?

The ancient Hebrews also worshipped idols so that argument is obviously a violation of Hume’s Law.

...and they got punished for it every time they did it.

Where, prey tell, did they get punished for the practice of polygamy?

Actions that lead a man’s heart astray from the worship of Yahweh sound like sins to me.

Hence their concern for FOREIGN wives.

Yup! (the same chapter regulates how polygamy is handled)

Glad we agree.
Game. Set. Match.

...or it was that way since Judea's culture changed under pagan influences and subsequently the nature of their god changed to fit the new culture.

Source?

My hypothesis based upon a plausible natural explanation, simpler than your ideas that Yahweh secretly disapproved of polygamy but only mustered the courage to say so in the NT.

The amount of stock you guys put into user-generated YouTube videos is downright appalling.

...because Bronze Age religious texts that feature talking snakes are so much more credible.

[Minimalist]

You’re proving my point; would you expect an infallible account of history and purpose to change? I wouldn’t.

I certainly wouldn't expect your fucking bullshit bible to change. Idiots like you couldn't keep up.

[pocaracas]

I read the whole thing!!!!
Do I get a cookie?

Yes sir.

nom nom nom!!!

I always get that.... "you need to be more aggressive", they say...

There are enough people like that on here and not enough like you.

Need. more. portuguese!

Well... dogs, cats and quite a lot of mammals can breed at one year of age... do those count as "higher organisms", to you?

Well Sanford’s work deals with primarily humans but I am not sure how you’d observe 80 years of the genetics of dogs and cats.

Ever heard of the project to domesticate foxes in Siberia?
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/18/148758624/...est-friend
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1G2yZMUNUQ

But that 2400 year number comes from humans and a historically high estimate for the age at which people have kids.... 30.

A lower generational number only confounds the problem for the deep time model.

Why?
It makes 80 generations go by much faster, thus eliminating deleterious genetic mutations chronologically faster.

I haven't gone back to read the study and it is possible that he measured it well...
But did he take into account the self-correcting mechanism on the genes that became faulty over the last generation?
1% of the genetic makeup may degenerate every generation (ughh... bad word choice), but what is degenerated in one generation gets corrected over the course of the next few generations... if it is indeed deleterious.

Are you saying that all deleterious mutations are selectable?

Considering that you're working your way to near-neutral mutations, then I'd have to say no.
Sometimes, what seems like deleterious is really not.
Like color blindness... not really impairing the ability to survive and breed, is it?

There are animals which adapt to life in near darkness... and lose the ability to see.... some even lose their eyes altogether.
Apparently deleterious, right?.... but didn't affect their ability to survive and breed, so it's good.

The concept of deleterious should pertain only to mutations that actually impair the ability to survive and breed.

But if that condition arose in a woman, it could be fatal.
That's why it hasn't filtered out of the male population... no pressure.

That’s the whole point though, it’s a deleterious mutation that reduces the functionality of the genome and yet it was never filtered out. You compile too many of those and you’re gone. I would also disagree that it has been filtered out in women, it’s simply rarer but it still exists (color blind father and a mother who is a carrier).

Yes, it does exist... like cancer exists...
Compile enough of these mutations?... and you may become a different species! like those cave animals I was telling you above.
You only die when you get an actual deleterious mutation.

Ah.... all your numbers pertain to "near-neutral deleterious mutations... ah... that makes more sense.
Why were you making a case for deleterious mutations as a whole when your source pertains only (or mostly) to "near-neutral" ones?

Near-neutral deleterious mutations are still considered to be deleterious mutations. Forgive me for not being clear.

Thou art forgiven.

Like I said above, these near-neutrals are only seemingly deleterious. And, if they accumulate enough to become actual deleterious, then the 80 generations rule takes over.... is the species can survive for 80 generations with that mutation...
If not, then yes... it's goodbye time.

Why do you think that the bible is "the word of god"? The god which is infallible?

When I start there I get a far more internally consistent conceptual scheme that can make sense of reality where others cannot.

Could it be because it was purposefully constructed to be internally consistent? You ever considered that?
The problem with that starting point is the initial connection with the observable reality... the actual existence of a divine entity.

It seems to be a collection of texts written by men who believed in the existence of some sort of god... sometimes it even sounds like they believed there could be more than one.

You’d have to be more specific for me to address this.

Sorry, I can't. My biblical knowledge only concerns itself with generalities... possibly watered down or biased by the people who mention them... but hey... the same thing goes for the qur'an, the vedas and other similarly holy compilations.

If the contents of the bible were written by men, is it not to be expected that some parts are as fallible as any other text?

The Bible does not claim to be merely written by men. Its divinely inspired; meaning every pen stroke was ordained by God which would make it infallible if that were true.

Mighty big IF you got there, don't you think?
Besides, why do you accept the claims of what those people wrote?
- The claim that they ware divinely inspired when writing...
- The claim that every pen stroke was ordained by god...
- The claim that it is infallible...

Why have faith in the contents of these writings... why accept them at face value?

If it was written by men, and the Vedas were also written by men, and the Buddhavacana were written by men, and many other accounts claimed to be from some greater spiritual entity were written by men.... how do come to the conclusion that the bible is correct, while the others must be incorrect? What is your criterion?

The others espouse conceptual schemes that are internally self-refuting while the Bible does not. If not “Not A” then “A”.

The people who follow the others will claim the same about all schemes that are not theirs...
Are they wrong?

[Rampant.A.I.]

You’re proving my point; would you expect an infallible account of history and purpose to change? I wouldn’t.

I certainly wouldn't expect your fucking bullshit bible to change. Idiots like you couldn't keep up.

There are 100's of different versions and translations of the Bible, and approximately 41,000 Christian sects worldwide. Anyone who tells you the Bible hasn't changed, and that the message is universal is either deluded by the "one True Christian Path," or lying to support the illusion of infallibility.

The Catholic Church (Which presents itself as the one true Christian religion) has committees who vote on doctrine with the current Pope (and are themselves considered infallible) and routinely revise doctrine, and release their revisions to clergy worldwide.

There is no such thing as the infallible Bible. It does not exist, and the notion becomes even more ridiculous when you consider the source of the King James Version, the most common Bible available today:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[Bad Writer]

Most available, maybe, but is it the most used? Still, that's not to say that any other version is any less prone to translation errors rife with early revisions and rewrites from times past. If there are no existing, original texts, scrolls, or documents, then why bother claiming that it's perfect/infallible? It's demonstrably changed (even a single translation tends to have that effect), so there's no point in deluding oneself further.

[Mothonis]

stat give us empirical evidence for

talking snakes,fruit that gives you knowledge instantly, angels

until god shows himself we wont teach creationism

[Whateverist]

Just came across this fact check of Hamm's statements during the debate. Good for the yucks.

http://youtu.be/aK7i-dtMaWk

[Cyberman]

Bollocks - ninja'ed!

[Statler Waldorf]

Well obviously by someone at sometime. Or do you think the various books that currently comprise the bible were originally written in English?

Nope, I am just aware of the fact that we have ancient manuscripts written in the original languages. Did you really think the only copies of the Bible we have were in English? Secondly, if the claim was that the Bible had been translated I would not object. However, the claim was that it had been changed and revised, implying a changing in intent or meaning.

Any translation of ancient text would be a revision as many languages do not translate word for word.

Even if this were true it’d be irrelevant since we have ancient manuscripts in the original languages. Secondly, translating something does not necessitate a change in meaning.

Also, languages evolve over time. New words and meanings are added through time.

That is precisely why one should factor in historical context when conducting hermeneutics and exegesis.

We can't know that, because we're not perfect. All we can do is hope to be as correct as possible at the time.

This is why I strongly object to Christians using the current scientific understanding to shape their interpretation of scripture.
I feel like we’re starting to understand one another.

You do understand that your account is demonstrably fallible according to the evidence, and the only thing propping up its supposed infallibility is your unreasoned faith, right? I mean, you did say before that strictly based on the evidence, the earth is older than the bible would indicate.

You just conceded that our understanding of the evidence is never certain and it could all drastically change in a matter of years like it has done hundreds of times before in the past; so why would this be a problem? Secondly, I do not believe we are both using the term faith in the same sense. I have logically sound reasons for believing that the Bible’s claims about history are true, and logically sound arguments should never be abandoned simply because of our current understanding of science. I said that if you start with an anti-Biblical perspective you will interpret the evidence to mean the Earth is billions of years old; I think it’s a misconception to say the evidence points one way or the other without requiring a priori assumptions in order to be interpreted.

And if the story the first child was telling you was that he can fly and shoot ice cream out of his butt, and the second child kept getting new information every time you asked him? Doesn't that change the scales, there?

Both children could be lying, that is true. However, I cannot use the second child’s testimony to prove the first child is lying because he keeps altering his testimony and therefore contradicting himself. The only way I can prove the first child is in fact lying is by finding some sort of internal logical contradiction in his story.

So, essentially, because science can't be one hundred percent right, you'll always assume it's wrong when it contradicts a book that claims it's one hundred percent right?

Yes and all Christians should do this if they truly believe what they claim to believe about scripture. Now this does not actually happen very often, I was able to get science degrees and now work in a scientific field just fine because the Bible is very friendly to the operational sciences.

How much more dishonest can you get?

On the contrary, I think I am being very intellectually honest and rather logical. I think true dishonesty occurs when someone quietly assumes beforehand that the Bible is wrong in order to interpret the evidence and then uses this interpretation to argue that the Bible is indeed wrong. Secondly, you’re doing the very same thing I am doing but without any rational justification for doing so. When current scientific understandings contradict the Bible I will always side with scripture because I believe it is infallible. When the Bible contradicts your understanding of current science you will always accept current science even though you know science is fallible-which makes no sense whatsoever. At least I have a very good reason for what I am doing.

"No, you!" -Statler Waldorf, 2014.

I was actually merely asking a question because you were being vague.

Start from an unjustified presupposition, young earth. Start from the evidence, old earth.

Properly identify your axioms= young earth. Hide under the dishonest pretense that you have no axioms = old Earth. I’ll take the former.

Don't be ridiculous. Honestly, that's just insulting that you think any of us are stupid enough to buy that, you ought to be ashamed.

That’s too bad you look at it that way but whether or not you find something insulting is irrelevant in regards to its truth. We’ve played this game before; you cannot make sense of your assumptions in a manner consistent with your materialism and I can make sense of mine consistently with the Bible. This means you’re using borrowed capital.

And how much of that biblical scheme, would you say, involves disregarding any evidence that seems to contradict the bible?

I have to disregard none of it because the evidence is very friendly to the Bible when using that conceptual scheme.

Because of how well science works in producing the results we want.

How do we know something ought to produce the results we want? How are you choosing what you want? Sounds arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

Mark chapter 16, after verse 8, is one undisputed example. The ending to the original Gospel got a later rewrite. By whom is a good question. We don't even know who wrote Mark, let alone who wrote the new ending.

We know that is a later addition because it does not show up until later on so it does not affect the original text any. He seems to be arguing there are revisions that affect the original text and I want to know what he is referring to.

Remember Bart Ehrman?

Who?

The guy you keep holding up on that grand pedestal as the infallible arbiter of all that is true? Yeah, that guy.

You mean the guy I was using as a hostile witness to prove you didn’t have a clue about what you were talking about? Yes, I remember him.

He's written extensively about how the Bible was changed over time.

Yes, but you reject this because he also believes and has written extensively about the historicity of Jesus right? There are well qualified scholars who disagree with Ehrman on the transmission of the New Testament; there are none who do on the historical Jesus.

Evidence.

Nice! I ask how you know your understanding of the evidence is not in error and you respond with, “evidence”. You truly are the king of circularity.

SW: “How do you know that is a real Rolex?”
DP: “It says Rolex on it.”

New facts = new conclusion. This is how I went from being pro-life to pro-choice. We learn new things and adjust our conclusions accordingly. What you deride as a weakness is in fact a strength.

That’s funny; most people become pro-life because of the advancements in science (even the late Hitchens struggled with reconciling a pro-choice ideology with science and ethics). Is there an issue that you are actually consistent on?

I’d prefer to have believed the Universe had a beginning the whole time rather than changing back and forth.

Who said science was infallible. Words like that belong with a religious ideology.

Actually we were talking about the Bible, try to keep up.

Who is more likely to be right? The student who starts with the data, forms a hypothesis based on the data and then tests the hypothesis and submits the testing to fellow students to see if they get the same results and then forms a theory or...
the student that starts with the conclusion, calls it an "axiom" and then looks for data to support it?

Depends on what you mean by right. I’d take the student who identifies his axioms and operates consistently within them over the first one who operates under the delusion (and ironically enough, axiom) that he does not have any axioms.

So is an "axiom" a bare assertion "proven" by circular reasoning?

No. It’s a proposition that is regarded as true a priori and used to reason from. “The exterior world is knowable” is a great example of an axiom I am sure you possess.

How about starting with the data and then drawing conclusions from it instead of starting with the conclusion, calling it an "axiom" and then looking for reasons to believe it?

It’s impossible to interpret any data without first possessing a conceptual scheme that is inherently axiomatic.

You keep asserting that, and calling it another of your "axioms", but I have yet to see any support for that assertion.

Actually that one is not axiomatic; it’s supported by the fact that you cannot make sense of any of your axioms consistently with your espoused views of reality. The Christian on the other hand has no problem doing so.

Unlike Yahweh, our secular government is not (or should not be) concerned with personal lives but nonetheless, our society does not approve of adultery and an adulterer will be at a disadvantage in a civil case of divorce. Even pre-nups may be thrown out by a judge sympathetic to the mistreatment of a spouse. You've picked a bad example to make your case that Yahweh regulated polygamy while secretly despising the practice and wishing that his chosen people would knock it off.

You just proved my point! The legal system (created by the American people who in poll after poll morally despise adultery) regulates adultery. Regulating something does not equal morally condoning something.

Apparently not so "obvious" to the "righteous" leaders of the "chosen people". From Abraham to Solomon, I can't think of any monogamous leaders or kings from the OT. Perhaps you can cite an example for me? Surely if the virtue were so obvious, at least one king from the OT practiced monogamy.

Why did you arbitrarily choose from Abraham to Solomon? Why not Adam onward? Something can be morally obvious and still be willfully violated; the fact some Old Testament figures practiced adultery does not prove anything, they committed lots of sins.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was painful for you when I hit you with some inconvenient verses. If there's a way I can be more gentle about it, let me know.

Understanding them ahead of time would help.

Re-read the verse. It does say David only strayed from Yahweh's will with Uriah and his wife.

No it doesn’t. It says David did not turn aside from anything that Yahweh commanded of him save for the one instance. There are sins that are not part of the Ten Commandments. We know that David sinned when he numbered his people, but this sin did not explicitly violate any of God’s commandments to His people.

But we were discussing polygamy in the OT. However, if you insist on discussing the NT, please explain why Yahweh changed his mind.

He didn’t change His mind; polygamy was a sin from creation onward, that is why Jesus says, “In the Beginning…”.

One says "never" and the other says "except in the case of...". I think this qualifies as a contradiction.

This is ignoring the historical context of the issue these statements were designed to resolve. Furthermore, high context societies such as the Middle East often use implied stipulations that do not make sense to us in our low context Western societies. We see this all the time concerning the Mosaic laws. Moreover, this is not even a contradiction, it’s merely an issue of elaboration.

Person 1: “Hey Statler, how was your party?”
SW: “It was great, everyone had a great time, except for Pocaracas because he could not make it.”
Person 2: “Hey Statler, how was your party?”
SW: “It was great, everyone had a great time.”

These two statements do not contradict one another because it is implied in the second that “everyone” is referring to those who were actually at the party. It is inappropriate for non-believers to apply ridiculous standards of interpretation to the Bible that they would never apply to their everyday lives.

Chapter and verse?

Adam and Eve are created in Genesis 1.

Where does it say you're not allowed to cleave again?

You did not answer my question so I will ask it again, why does the verse say wife and not wives? According to you the Israelites did not start practicing monogamy until later on, so this verse should say wives, why does it only say wife?

That seemed to be the ancient Hebrews' interpretation. You'll pardon me if I consider them and not you the expert on what Yahweh really meant, I hope?

Except for the ancient Hebrews such as Adam, Seth, Isaac, Noah and his sons, Joseph, Moses and so on who practiced monogamy right? You’re violating Hume’s law again. The ancient Hebrews understood the rules and violated them countless times.

...and they got punished for it every time they did it.

Idolatry is a more serious sin. It still refutes your argument that whatever the Israelites practiced was what God wanted them to.

Where, prey tell, did they get punished for the practice of polygamy?

Polygamy led men to ruin in all of the cases I can think of, so yes.

Hence their concern for FOREIGN wives.

…because they were foreign or because there were more than one of them?

Glad we agree.

Yes, we agree that regulating something does not equal morally accepting it. Game. Set. Match.

My hypothesis based upon a plausible natural explanation, simpler than your ideas that Yahweh secretly disapproved of polygamy but only mustered the courage to say so in the NT.

I knew you were blowing smoke. I love it when you assume naturalism to argue for naturalism; the king of circularity returns. So a bunch of men who are having sex with multiple women who have to submit to their will decide they want to adopt monogamy because it’s what the Romans (who oppress them and whom they despise) do? That’s funny you think that is even remotely a possibility.

No, they were supposed to be monogamists, they at times had fallen astray and the Son of God corrected them; makes far more sense.

...because Bronze Age religious texts that feature talking snakes are so much more credible.

Argumentum ad novitatem and an argument from incredulity in one sentence! Is that a personal best?

I certainly wouldn't expect your fucking bullshit bible to change. Idiots like you couldn't keep up.

You should be glad I believe in miracles; it’s the only reason I read your posts, hoping that maybe for once you contributed something thought-provoking to the discussion. Alas, no miracle today.

nom nom nom!!!

Well Sanford’s work deals with primarily humans but I am not sure how you’d observe 80 years of the genetics of dogs and cats.

Ever heard of the project to domesticate foxes in Siberia?

No I have not, those Russians…always scheming. I doubt they’re sequencing the Foxes’ genomes in order to monitor the filtering of mutations. Cool video though.

A lower generational number only confounds the problem for the deep time model.

Why?
It makes 80 generations go by much faster, thus eliminating deleterious genetic mutations chronologically faster.

You’re eliminating the ones that are selectable yes but you are compiling the others at a much faster rate; thus bringing on the advent of error catastrophe much more quickly.

Are you saying that all deleterious mutations are selectable?

Considering that you're working your way to near-neutral mutations, then I'd have to say no.
Sometimes, what seems like deleterious is really not.
Like color blindness... not really impairing the ability to survive and breed, is it?

No it’s not, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is whether or not it is degrading the overall functionality of the genome; which it is. Undergoing this sort of entropy is not viable over a deep time model.

There are animals which adapt to life in near darkness... and lose the ability to see.... some even lose their eyes altogether.
Apparently deleterious, right?.... but didn't affect their ability to survive and breed, so it's good.

I would not necessarily call it good, but you’re right that it’s not as deleterious as an animal that lives out in broad daylight losing its vision.

The concept of deleterious should pertain only to mutations that actually impair the ability to survive and breed.

I would disagree, a mutation that does not harm me now but could harm humans later on would still have a certain level of deleterious value to it now.

That’s the whole point though, it’s a deleterious mutation that reduces the functionality of the genome and yet it was never filtered out. You compile too many of those and you’re gone. I would also disagree that it has been filtered out in women, it’s simply rarer but it still exists (color blind father and a mother who is a carrier).

Yes, it does exist... like cancer exists...
Compile enough of these mutations?... and you may become a different species! like those cave animals I was telling you above.

That’s debatable, I am not sure that a group of people who’d lost their ability to see would be considered a new species.

You only die when you get an actual deleterious mutation.

Or enough near-neutral mutations in order to cause your genome to cease functioning properly.

Near-neutral deleterious mutations are still considered to be deleterious mutations. Forgive me for not being clear.

Thou art forgiven.

Like I said above, these near-neutrals are only seemingly deleterious. And, if they accumulate enough to become actual deleterious, then the 80 generations rule takes over.... is the species can survive for 80 generations with that mutation...
If not, then yes... it's goodbye time.

We’re not talking about one single mutation here though; we are talking about hundreds upon hundres of copying errors that overtime can cause the entire genome to breakdown.

When I start there I get a far more internally consistent conceptual scheme that can make sense of reality where others cannot.

Could it be because it was purposefully constructed to be internally consistent? You ever considered that?
The problem with that starting point is the initial connection with the observable reality... the actual existence of a divine entity.

It’d be impossible to contrive an internally consistent view of reality and have any part of it being true without the entire thing being true. If any part of the Christian view of reality is true then the entire thing is true because it is so internally consistent.

The Bible does not claim to be merely written by men. Its divinely inspired; meaning every pen stroke was ordained by God which would make it infallible if that were true.

Mighty big IF you got there, don't you think?
Besides, why do you accept the claims of what those people wrote?
- The claim that they ware divinely inspired when writing...
- The claim that every pen stroke was ordained by god...
- The claim that it is infallible...

Why have faith in the contents of these writings... why accept them at face value?

I think my response above addresses this. It must be true.

The others espouse conceptual schemes that are internally self-refuting while the Bible does not. If not “Not A” then “A”.

The people who follow the others will claim the same about all schemes that are not theirs...
Are they wrong?

I am actually not aware of any other religion that takes this sort of approach but yes they’d be demonstrably wrong because their views of reality are self-refuting whereas the Christian one is not.

There are 100's of different versions and translations of the Bible, and approximately 41,000 Christian sects worldwide. Anyone who tells you the Bible hasn't changed, and that the message is universal is either deluded by the "one True Christian Path," or lying to support the illusion of infallibility.

Having different translations of the Bible is a strength not a weakness. Secondly, 41,000 “sects” (which is a grossly inflated number contrived by improperly counting subdivisions of Christian denominations as separate groups) only proves that people are fallible- not that scripture itself is. There are only three branches of Christianity and only several dozen different denominations of it.

The Catholic Church (Which presents itself as the one true Christian religion) has committees who vote on doctrine with the current Pope (and are themselves considered infallible) and routinely revise doctrine, and release their revisions to clergy worldwide.

People are fallible.

There is no such thing as the infallible Bible. It does not exist, and the notion becomes even more ridiculous when you consider the source of the King James Version, the most common Bible available today:

Well shucks, if you’re allowed to merely make assertions then I am allowed to answer back with my own. There is such a thing as the infallible Bible. It does exist. That was easy.

Most available, maybe, but is it the most used? Still, that's not to say that any other version is any less prone to translation errors rife with early revisions and rewrites from times past. If there are no existing, original texts, scrolls, or documents, then why bother claiming that it's perfect/infallible? It's demonstrably changed (even a single translation tends to have that effect), so there's no point in deluding oneself further.

Early Christians created so many copies of scripture and distributed them so quickly and to such a widespread area revisions and tampering would have been impossible. You sound like you’re basing your understanding of the facts off of Dan Brown or something.

stat give us empirical evidence for

You only believe in that which you have empirical evidence for?

until god shows himself we wont teach creationism

Romans 1.

Just came across this fact check of Hamm's statements during the debate. Good for the yucks.

More YouTube videos? This is ridiculous. I think you should have fact checked your fact checker there; he’s clueless.