Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< All of my posts have regarded misconceptions people have regarding number theory >>>[/quote] I hod NO conception of “number theory” at all. Mis or otherwise Not the point. Try this post I wrote to Groo which would have been a PM if they worked. Maybe you missed it maybe not. Numbers ARE NOT the point. They are a tool that illustrates the point, which is logical certainty.

This is the PM to Groo that I cannot send. Not the way I wanted to do it, but here it is.

[quote]groo wrote: I am not certain he understands what you are driving at. >>>[/quote]I am certain he does not understand, which I hasten to add says literally nothing about his intelligence or lack thereof. [quote]groo wrote: You are asking for something like this correct? Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy >>>[/quote] What I am asking for, neither he nor you nor any other man can give me though we all use it every second of every day. [quote]groo wrote:
Especially bits like this?

In seeking a definition of number, the first thing to be clear about is what we may call the grammar of our inquiry. Many philosophers, when attempting to define number, are really setting to work to define plurality, which is quite a different thing. Number is what is characteristic of numbers, as man is what is characteristic of men. A plurality is not an instance of number, but of some particular number. A trio of men, for example, is an instance of the number 3, and the number 3 is an instance of number; but the trio is not an instance of number. This point may seem elementary and scarcely worth mentioning; yet it has proved too subtle for the philosophers, with few exceptions.[/quote] Plurality is an expression and symptom of number, but not number itself. I agree. What I’m saying is subtler (more foundational) still than this man’s assertion that “trio is not an instance of number” which I also agree with, but which also still does not get to what I’m asking for.
On page 2 this guy says, before he goes on to give a bunch of different illustrations of the point he’s trying to make.:[quote]These remarks are relevant, when we are seeking the definition of number, in three different ways. In the first place, numbers themselves form an infinite collection, and cannot therefore be defined by enumeration. In the second place, the collections having a given number of terms themselves presumably form an infinite collection: it is to be presumed, for example, that there are an infinite collection of trios in the world, for if this were not the case the total number of things in the world would be finite, which, though possible, seems unlikely. In the third place, we wish to define â??numberâ?? in such a way that infinite numbers may be possible; thus we must be able to speak of the number of terms in an infinite collection, and such a collection must be defined by intension, i.e. by a property common to all its members and peculiar to them.[/quote]
This is where he is stabbing around for my point, but winds up with a bunch of gobbledygook. Things in the world are infinite? Really? I’d like to know how he defines “world”. If Kamui reads this he is going to quite rightly see the problem of the one and the many reasserting itself right here. (another story).

Just as when you and I met a year ago now Groo, I am after logical certainty. I use simple mathematics as a vehicle because nobody will ever deny that 2+2=4 in our pragmatic day to day life where it matters. We all live and breathe in certainty every second. You said so yourself. On this page: Documented Cases of Evolution - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation When you said:“Yes I think we can know some things for certain. Or at the very least I act as if I believe this. Pragmatically everyone does.” A statement for which I awarded you my highly coveted (yeah right =D ) “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=11

The bottom line here is this. DrMAtt has been telling me about every related thing except why 2+2 is CERTAINLY 4. Everything he has said to me thus far can be summed up in the purely tautological statement of “that’s just the way it is”. We’re right back where we started. I, you, DrMatt, we are pickled in pragmatic logical certainty without which not one single syllable of intelligible thought word or deed, mathematical or otherwise is possible, yet almost none of us has ever questioned why at that level.

282

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Yes, until proper evidence is observed and tested, the default position should be nonbelief. [/quote] Absolutely false. The living God was here first. He designed EVERYTHING and EVERYTHING bears His signature. Especially YOU because you are created in His image. The burden of proof is entirely yours. The universal protestation to the contrary by sinful arrogant humans is EXACTLY what they’re supposed to do after he 3rd chapter of Genesis. God is the universal default. Your refusal to acknowledge Him is your problem not His. He has provided inescapable and comprehensive proof on and in every material and metaphysical object and fact of reality. he is not hidden. YOU are blind. Doesn’t have to be ya know.

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:<<< Me: “My doctor says that the tests show I have cancer.”

Creationist: “Oh you know how doctors are, always shoving their opinion in people’s faces.”

I hope that sounded as stupid as I imagined. >>>[/quote]Congratulations. It did. Your doctor is not diagnosing someone who has been dead for 65 million years.

283

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

So please, enlighten me Joe (or Matt or anyine else). How does Lenski’s long term experiment prove that evolution is true?[/quote]

I hate to say it, but this statement does show a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific studies are done and what the specific purpose of Lenski’s experiment is. Most people without advanced education (and some that do) in the hard sciences have the same problem, whether they subscribe to the ToE or not. I have outlined how scientific studies are done in other threads, such as that global warming swindle one, and Fletch did a good job of describing scientific methodology in the first Bill Nye thread, and I have also done so elsewhere, so I will not go into too much detail about scientific methodology here.

I am not trying to sound condescending here, either, all of my degrees are in the fields of mathematics and physics, so all of my knowledge of biology comes from a two semester intro to biology sequence that I was required to take in undergrad about 20 years ago that I barely paid attention in and the ToE only comprised 3 chapters of the sequence at that. This means that I know next to nothing about the field of biology in general and even less about the ToE. In fact, until this post I have not said one word in this thread on the ToE. All of my posts have regarded misconceptions people have regarding number theory, but since you mentioned me personally, which I didn’t realize right away, I thought I would look into it and conferred with my fiance who, while not an evolutionary biologist still holds a PhD in microbiology, and she gave me quite a bit of information.

First, evolution is a very broad field and has many components to it and it, like any scientific theory, takes a LOT of evidence from multiple experiments to be considered a theory, so you will not find a single study that encompasses the entirety of evolutionary theory and states “This one study proves all of evolutionary theory to be true.” All scientific theories evolve (no pun intended) as more information is discovered, and evolution is no different.

Lenski’s experiment was started with the goals of observing how the rates of evolutionary mutations change over time, and to see if those adaptations could be reproduced in separate population groups under the same conditions, and his experiments have indeed shown that. In fact, here is one of the many articles he has had published on his experiment:

The point of his experiment was not to demonstrate speciation, which is the splitting of a species into separate, distinct species. There is already a lot of other studies that have shown this phenomenon occur, both naturally and artificially. Here is just one of them:
http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/rice/publications/pdf/25.pdf

It is also not the point of Lenski’s experiment to prove common descent, there are plenty of other researchers working on that, usually geneticists studying common genes found in the various species throughout history, as well as similar and vestigial traits in certain species. Here is one such study that was done on common ancestry:

I don’t know enough about genetics and the field of biology as a whole to comment on the validity of the experiments, but my fiance and every credible biologist that I know is convinced, and I have not seen any credible scientific evidence to dispute the field of genetics.

My point, in case you missed it, is that there is no one study or experiment that one can point to and say: “this one proves evolution incontrovertibly” or “This one disproves evolution incontrovertibly” because it takes so many studies and repetitions of studies to even begin to say with any degree of certainty that a phenomenon is occurring or not occurring. There is enough evidence of evolution, as well as a lack of scientific evidence to disprove evolution, to say that yes, evolution does occur. Certain parts of the broad field of evolution may be, and by may I mean certainly are, wrong, but that is why we continue to experiment, to discover the truth and eventually do something useful and beneficial to society with the knowledge we scientists discover, like all the fancy medical advancements that have come from the study of genetics.

[/quote]

I appreciate your post (really, I’m not just saying that!)

2 things.

  1. I was responding to Matty (the other one in this thread) not you. (no offense).

  2. I didn’t raise the issue of this experiment. I was merely responding to others who posted it as “proof” of evolution. so, contrary to your post, this HAS been used to try and prove ToE.

I agree with you, this doesn’t demonstrate speciation or prove common descent. Maybe you should explain that to the evolution apologists in this thread.

284

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
A whole bunch of nonsense
[/quote]

285

953×225 64 KB

So in other words they demonstrate that when the external force of intelligent design is applied to a designed experiment in a designed laboratory… by design. It does what the designer designed?

286

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< All of my posts have regarded misconceptions people have regarding number theory >>>[/quote] I hod NO conception of “number theory” at all. Mis or otherwise Not the point. Try this post I wrote to Groo which would have been a PM if they worked. Maybe you missed it maybe not. Numbers ARE NOT the point. They are a tool that illustrates the point, which is logical certainty.

This is the PM to Groo that I cannot send. Not the way I wanted to do it, but here it is.

[quote]groo wrote: I am not certain he understands what you are driving at. >>>[/quote]I am certain he does not understand, which I hasten to add says literally nothing about his intelligence or lack thereof. [quote]groo wrote: You are asking for something like this correct? Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy >>>[/quote] What I am asking for, neither he nor you nor any other man can give me though we all use it every second of every day. [quote]groo wrote:
Especially bits like this?

In seeking a definition of number, the first thing to be clear about is what we may call the grammar of our inquiry. Many philosophers, when attempting to define number, are really setting to work to define plurality, which is quite a different thing. Number is what is characteristic of numbers, as man is what is characteristic of men. A plurality is not an instance of number, but of some particular number. A trio of men, for example, is an instance of the number 3, and the number 3 is an instance of number; but the trio is not an instance of number. This point may seem elementary and scarcely worth mentioning; yet it has proved too subtle for the philosophers, with few exceptions.[/quote] Plurality is an expression and symptom of number, but not number itself. I agree. What I’m saying is subtler (more foundational) still than this man’s assertion that “trio is not an instance of number” which I also agree with, but which also still does not get to what I’m asking for.
On page 2 this guy says, before he goes on to give a bunch of different illustrations of the point he’s trying to make.:[quote]These remarks are relevant, when we are seeking the definition of number, in three different ways. In the first place, numbers themselves form an infinite collection, and cannot therefore be defined by enumeration. In the second place, the collections having a given number of terms themselves presumably form an infinite collection: it is to be presumed, for example, that there are an infinite collection of trios in the world, for if this were not the case the total number of things in the world would be finite, which, though possible, seems unlikely. In the third place, we wish to define Ã?¢??numberÃ?¢?? in such a way that infinite numbers may be possible; thus we must be able to speak of the number of terms in an infinite collection, and such a collection must be defined by intension, i.e. by a property common to all its members and peculiar to them.[/quote]
This is where he is stabbing around for my point, but winds up with a bunch of gobbledygook. Things in the world are infinite? Really? I’d like to know how he defines “world”. If Kamui reads this he is going to quite rightly see the problem of the one and the many reasserting itself right here. (another story).

Just as when you and I met a year ago now Groo, I am after logical certainty. I use simple mathematics as a vehicle because nobody will ever deny that 2+2=4 in our pragmatic day to day life where it matters. We all live and breathe in certainty every second. You said so yourself. On this page: Documented Cases of Evolution - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation When you said:“Yes I think we can know some things for certain. Or at the very least I act as if I believe this. Pragmatically everyone does.” A statement for which I awarded you my highly coveted (yeah right =D ) “Hallelujah Worthy Bullseye” award here: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=11

The bottom line here is this. DrMAtt has been telling me about every related thing except why 2+2 is CERTAINLY 4. Everything he has said to me thus far can be summed up in the purely tautological statement of “that’s just the way it is”. We’re right back where we started. I, you, DrMatt, we are pickled in pragmatic logical certainty without which not one single syllable of intelligible thought word or deed, mathematical or otherwise is possible, yet almost none of us has ever questioned why at that level. [/quote]

I did not miss that post, but I did not feel it warranted a response because all you did was make a claim without backing it up at all, and you had no argument against any of my previous posts, which you yourself all but said when you admitted that you did not know how to proceed with the debate. This is probably because you were trying to use philosophical arguments, a topic you obvious know a lot about but I do not, to argue a point about theoretical mathematics, a topic you obviously do not know a lot about but I do. I am not trying to be rude here, either, but you obviously have not devoted any amount of time to the study of mathematics, and yet you feel qualified to claim that you understand the field on a deeper level then people who spend many years studying it. That is just pure arrogance. It seems to me, and I may be wrong here, but I doubt that I am, that you think that your studies into the fields of philosophy and religion means that you are capable of understanding anything on a greater level then anyone, just by asking vague and poorly defined questions that have little if anything to do with the topic at hand. This may stem from the history of philosophy, where every academic was required to study philosophy and the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics and science were one (in fact, the title PhD is a throwback to this tradition), but that time is long past. The purpose and methodologies of those fields are all very different mow, and what constitutes a valid argument or statement in one may, and probably is not, in another. This is why you will not see a modern philosopher make any meaningful contributions to fields like mathematics or physics without specialized training in those fields, and the opposite is also true. A physicist and mathematician like myself (I have been published in mathematical journals so I can claim the title of mathematician even though I only have a master’s in the field and am employed as a physicist) making any meaningful contribution to the field of philosophy without any real amount of training and experience in the field. This is why people should just stick to their field and accept that there is no one discipline that will lead to advanced knowledge and understanding in other fields without specialized advanced training in that field. If you want to argue logical certainty, that is all good and well, but you may want to use examples from a field that you understand and have advanced knowledge of because you do not have any advanced knowledge of mathematics, as evidenced by your inability to have a real discussion with me on the topic. Again, I am not trying to be rude to you or belittle you at all, you are obviously a smart guy and have obviously spent time studying philosophy and religion, whether on your own or in a formal university setting, but knowledge of those two topics do not equal an understanding of other fields like mathematics or the hard sciences without advanced training in those fields. If it did, they wouldn’t be separate fields.

287

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So in other words they demonstrate that when the external force of intelligent design is applied to a designed experiment in a designed laboratory… by design. It does what the designer designed?[/quote]

Where do you get designer out of that image/abstract?

288

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So in other words they demonstrate that when the external force of intelligent design is applied to a designed experiment in a designed laboratory… by design. It does what the designer designed?[/quote]

You need to read beyond the abstract. The flies were not forced to inhabit different ecosystems. Separate habitats were designed to model different natural habitats that can be found on Earth, and the flies were allowed to choose which habitat they would settle in, which mirrors what happens in nature. Species migrate to different habitats all the time. This experiment showed that when members of a species inhabit different environments, they can split into different species depending on certain factors. The habitats were not specifically designed to force speciation.

Actually, just the fact that species can split into different species is enough to dispute the claim of some that all life was created in it’s current form. I am not saying that you are making that claim, but some do.

289

[quote]schmichael wrote:

I appreciate your post (really, I’m not just saying that!)

2 things.

  1. I was responding to Matty (the other one in this thread) not you. (no offense).

  2. I didn’t raise the issue of this experiment. I was merely responding to others who posted it as “proof” of evolution. so, contrary to your post, this HAS been used to try and prove ToE.
    [/quote]

That experiment is part of a large body of experimental data that are evidence of evolution, so those who brought it up were not wrong in citing it, but the claim that it proved all of evolution is wrong just like the claim that it did not prove evolution just because it did not encompass every aspect of evolutionary theory is wrong. The experiment has thus far proved exactly what it sought to do. It does not prove every aspect of evolution, but it does provide evidence of some of the fundamental aspects of evolution.

290

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

I have outlined how scientific studies are done in other threads, such as that global warming swindle one, and Fletch did a good job of describing scientific methodology in the first Bill Nye thread, and I have also done so elsewhere, so I will not go into too much detail about scientific methodology here.
[/quote]

Thanks!

291

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
First, evolution is a very broad field and has many components to it and it, like any scientific theory, takes a LOT of evidence from multiple experiments to be considered a theory, so you will not find a single study that encompasses the entirety of evolutionary theory and states “This one study proves all of evolutionary theory to be true.” All scientific theories evolve (no pun intended) as more information is discovered, and evolution is no different.
[/quote]

To schmichael:

This is why it’s so difficult for me to explain evolution to you. To do so effectively, I would practically have to make a lesson plan tailored to you to provide a full understanding of it and then link it to the philosophy of science.

By the way, what was your degree since you brought it up if you don’t mind me asking?

292

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
First, evolution is a very broad field and has many components to it and it, like any scientific theory, takes a LOT of evidence from multiple experiments to be considered a theory, so you will not find a single study that encompasses the entirety of evolutionary theory and states “This one study proves all of evolutionary theory to be true.” All scientific theories evolve (no pun intended) as more information is discovered, and evolution is no different.
[/quote]

To schmichael:

This is why it’s so difficult for me to explain evolution to you. To do so effectively, I would practically have to make a lesson plan tailored to you to provide a full understanding of it and then link it to the philosophy of science.

By the way, what was your degree since you brought it up if you don’t mind me asking?

[/quote]

This is something I have touched on many times in many threads, including this one just a couple of posts above this. When it comes to any advanced topic in any field, it will likely take someone many years of dedicated study to even begin to understand it and to really have an informed opinion on the topic. I myself spent nearly a decade studying and researching particle physics beyond the undergraduate level before I really understood it and this holds for nearly any field like evolution, topics in computer science, art, philosophy, or mathematics. Nobody, no matter how smart, will just be able to fully understand all fields, or even one without a lot of time dedicated to actually studying it (and not just reading over simplified articles that are usually biased one way or the other).

293

I’ll leave you to tussle with schmichael for now (I probably should have done that anyway) unless the Lord will grace me with a better way of communicating epistemology with you.

If you are so inclined give this a read: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html

294

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That experiment is part of a large body of experimental data that are evidence of evolution, so those who brought it up were not wrong in citing it, but the claim that it proved all of evolution is wrong just like the claim that it did not prove evolution just because it did not encompass every aspect of evolutionary theory is wrong. The experiment has thus far proved exactly what it sought to do. It does not prove every aspect of evolution, but it does provide evidence of some of the fundamental aspects of evolution.
[/quote]

This is the first post that brought up Lenski, from page 7.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.

And then…- YouTube [/quote]

I can read that and see that it says “Evolution has been proven to occur.”, and not “Lenski’s experiment has proven everything about evolution.”

As usual, schmichael takes things out of context in order for it to fit his narrow worldview.

295

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I’ll leave you to tussle with schmichael for now (I probably should have done that anyway) unless the Lord will grace me with a better way of communicating epistemology with you.

If you are so inclined give this a read: http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html [/quote]

The problem is, not only have you not advanced your position, but you haven’t even taken one. You just make broad and poorly defined claims without backing them up and you do absolutely nothing to defeat my stance at all, despite your belief that epistemology is fundamental to a field you know nothing about. If you do not mind my asking, but what is your formal education? If I had to guess, I would say you have no formal education in the field of philosophy or epistemology in general, and if you do it is not beyond an undergraduate level. My reasoning for this is your attitude toward the topic. Most people with advanced education in a topic grow to understand the limitations of their field and no longer think that their field represents the epitome of human knowledge, or that knowledge of their field leads to some fundamental understanding of all others and I do not know a single philosopher (and I do know a few) with any real training in the field that would make the claims that you have, beyond as a very simplified example. But I do not know of any that would claim that “your disciplines depend for their very existence AND operation on my position.” beyond to say that modern sciences and mathematics stemmed from early philosophers but have since grown into very different fields with different goals and different methodologies for defining and acquiring knowledge, which is the truth. I really hope one day you will realize that there is no one field that is fundamental to all others.

297

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
That experiment is part of a large body of experimental data that are evidence of evolution, so those who brought it up were not wrong in citing it, but the claim that it proved all of evolution is wrong just like the claim that it did not prove evolution just because it did not encompass every aspect of evolutionary theory is wrong. The experiment has thus far proved exactly what it sought to do. It does not prove every aspect of evolution, but it does provide evidence of some of the fundamental aspects of evolution.
[/quote]

This is the first post that brought up Lenski, from page 7.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Evolution has been proven to occur. By looking at being with very short lifespans, such as Lenski did at Michigan State, we can almost see it happening.

And then…- YouTube [/quote]

I can read that and see that it says “Evolution has been proven to occur.”, and not “Lenski’s experiment has proven everything about evolution.”

As usual, schmichael takes things out of context in order for it to fit his narrow worldview.[/quote]

This post sums up this thread perfectly. I point out that the long term evolution experiment doesn’t provide proof of common ancestry and the grand ToE. I am then roundly derided for not knowing what I’m talking about and misunderstanding the experiment. However, Dr Matt comes along and says the exact same thing and, all of a sudden, it’s “oh yeah, you know what, you’re right”.

At no stage did I claim “that it did not prove evolution just because it did not encompass every aspect of evolutionary theory…” The level of reading comprehension around here is very poor. It’s not all bad though, the high level of fallacious arguments more than makes up for it!!!

For anyone wondering why 40-50% (approx) of people don’t accept evolution as true, they only need to refer to this thread. Despite repeated claims that the evidence for ToE is overwhelming, or “97% of scientists believe”, or any other fallacious appeal, you guys can’t provide even a rudimentary argument that would convince anyone.

Now the claim is (paraphrased)“unless you’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in evolution, you wouldn’t understand”. It’s no wonder that you need to legislate against teaching any criticism of evolution. You certainly can’t leave it up to the evidence to convince anyone…

298

[quote]schmichael wrote:
you guys can’t provide even a rudimentary argument that would convince anyone.
[/quote]

tsk tsk

299

schmichael, what do you have to say for your intentional misrepresentation of Mary Schweitzer and her work?

300

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You need some study as to what creation theory entails.
[/quote]

Summary: God did it, no need to investigate.