Bill Nye’s Debate Nightmare

Daily Beast/Yahoo News ^ | February 5, 2014 | Michael Schulson

[GunRunner]

Sorry but evolution has a beginning, a start point.

So did gravity, but general relativity has nothing to do with where it started.

The theory of evolution is about the mechanics of evolution, not when or how it started.

You can keep saying this all you want, but the simple, indiputable fact is that the theory of evolution does not involve life's origin. Period.

[GunRunner]

Where’s the cut off line where abiogenesis ends and evolution begins?

I don't know what you mean by cut off line. That's like saying "where's the cut off line where the Big Bang ends and gravity begins?" It's a meaningless question.

[metmom]

Of course not, but I’ll try again.

If evolution only addresses the evolution of life, then it behooves one not only to define life but also to decide where the starting point is.

At what point does the ToE kick in?

I seriously doubt that anyone would not consider any single celled organism to be life. But what about other things where they are not so easily delineated?

What about prions? Viruses?

They exhibit some signs of being living but not all. Where do they fall?

[GunRunner]

Another superflous point. We know that some scientists consider viruses to be life, but others say that they're not. However, we do know for a fact that viruses evolve.

So it may be the case that we can observe evolution in something that actually isn't considered life by some.

An interesting discussion, but once again irrelevant.

[metmom]

Not irrelevant.

Life did not pop into existence.

Somewhere along the continuum between non-living and living, what we know to be life kicked in. If the ToE addresses life, it is necessary to know when that life began.

[GunRunner]

No, it’s not necessary at all and evolution does not address this point.

[FredZarguna]

Purplemath? You can't possibly be serious. The idiot at Purplemath continues to pretend that the fact that 0.99999.... = 1 is a consequence of the Axiom of Choice. Nope. Has nothing to do with the Axiom of Choice.

It's a result of the Axiom of Completeness, which isn't even vaguely related.

If you're getting your math and science from places like Purplemath, I can understand why you are as confused as you are.

[metmom]

Show me the math that proves them wrong.

Are you presuming accuracy to what we have with them using handbreadth and cubits?

Exactly how many inches were the handbreadth and cubit used and how do you know?

Do you presume to know if the interior measurement of the bowl was used or the exterior?

[FredZarguna]

• The world was not created in six days.
• The human race did not arise from two individuals.
• Females were not made from the ribs of males.
• Outer space is not made of water [or filled with water] now, nor at any previous time in the history of the universe.
• The number of generations between the first humans and the characters in the Bible is not even known, let alone their names.
• Human beings do not die because of sin, apples, or talking snakes.
• Water could not have existed before photons, but God doesn't get around to creating light until after he separates the [nonexistent] waters.
• The was no night and no day before the sun, neither did they exist before the Earth. These are local terrestrial phenomena.
• Life on Earth did not exist before the stars, because there are no heavy elements until first generation stars die.
• Plants did not exist before the sun.
• The sun did not come into existence after the Earth.
• The sun and the moon did not come into existence at the same time.
• All of the creatures in the world were not created at the same time.
• The distinction between domesticated animals and wild animals is entirely a function of human husbandry; in particular, stock animals and feral animals were not "created" at the same time; and the distinction did not come from God, but from humans.

That's just a survey of the baloney in the first couple of chapters that occurs to me off the top of my head. When you supply answers to those, I'll get you several million more.

[FredZarguna]

In order to arrive at the conclusion, they make assumptions which just conveniently make the ratio of the circumference of the circle and the diameter 3.14 [which actually is not π]

So if your argument is that you can make any assumption you want in order to salvage the reputation of the book, we are agreeable: Yes, you can do that.

But that's not what the book says. It's interesting that this magical book is literally true. Except sometimes, when it isn't. It's complete. Except on occasions like this, where prestidigitation has be be invoked to fill in the blanks. It's never wrong. Except when it talks about science, when it always is wrong.

[metmom]

Is that the math to show that the calculations that show the conclusion found in Scripture are wrong?

That's just a survey of the baloney in the first couple of chapters that occurs to me off the top of my head. When you supply answers to those, I'll get you several million more.

Even if I spent the rest of my life answering those questions, you wouldn't be satisfied. No answer is good enough for someone who doesn't want to be convinced.

You don't believe because you don't want to believe, not because of alleged inconsistencies that you think you found.

[metmom]

It's interesting that this magical book is literally true. Except sometimes, when it isn't. It's complete. Except on occasions like this, where prestidigitation has be be invoked to fill in the blanks. It's never wrong. Except when it talks about science, when it always is wrong.

Hey, the only ones who demand a literal reading of the entire Bible are the very unbelievers who don't believe it anyway. They only do it because it's the only way they can justify rejecting it.

Any believers who read it recognize that while it is truth, it is not all literal. There is simile, metaphor, parables, poetry, songs, prophecy, and history.

Anyone who demands that the entire thing be read one way simply cannot think outside the box they've put themselves and their world in.

It's not a very objective worldview, especially for those who pride themselves on being objective.

[GunRunner]

Hey, the only ones who demand a literal reading of the entire Bible are the very unbelievers who don't believe it anyway. They only do it because it's the only way they can justify rejecting it.

So, the object of the thread (Ken Ham) is not demanding a literal interpretation with his theory of a 6,000 year old Earth?

[FredZarguna]

Hey, the only ones who demand a literal reading of the entire Bible are the very unbelievers who don't believe it anyway. They only do it because it's the only way they can justify rejecting it.

This would be a great counterargument, if true. But it isn't. First: the argument you jumped into was between me and someone who literally believes the world was created in six days, six or so thousand years ago. He/They claim to be believers.

Second, you are assuming facts which are not in evidence. I believe in God. I don't believe that the one true God is the God of Abraham. Too many things attributed to Him by believers -- not me -- are simply evil.

As for the rest of it ... just more of the stuff that you tell yourself to convince yourself that your worldview is correct. You're projecting. I grew up with the whole indoctrination campaign: mass every Sunday, Catholic grade school, Catholic high school. If you're an Evangelical who's about to tell me that's the reason for my apostasy, nope, not even close. Plenty of Evangelicals and even two Protestant ministers in my mother's family of twelve. I take this seriously, have studied it, have thought about it, and know what most Christian and Jewish sects believe. I am the one who broke out of the box. And I hope you will, too.