The Ham/Nye debate!

[Omniskeptical]

I think Ken Ham may have used the debate to separate operational science i.e. working science, from historical science i.e. speculative science. Any takers?

I will try to watch this debate, but I may get bored by it.

[Kbertsche]

I think Ken Ham may have used the debate to separate operational science i.e. working science, from historical science i.e. speculative science. Any takers?

I will try to watch this debate, but I may get bored by it.

Most YEC speakers try to distinguish "operational science" from "historical science". They claim that the methodology is different, and they want to accept the first and reject the second.

They problem is that they are wrong. The methodology is essentially the same for both.

[Omniskeptical]

Most YEC speakers try to distinguish "operational science" from "historical science". They claim that the methodology is different, and they want to accept the first and reject the second.

They problem is that they are wrong. The methodology is essentially the same for both.

Or perhaps, you weren't listening even though it was boring. Ken Ham seems to define historical science as opinion or interpretational science. Operational science and its interpretation are two different things; but I suppose I coin this stuff first.

When something is first discovered, its interpretation isn't usually perfect, and it then undergoes remodeling. But such is the nature of science, and I didn't not give Ken Ham this idea.

I am just frustrated by how simplistic that debate was. You seem to feel the same way about it.

[Kbertsche]

L

Or perhaps, you weren't listening even though it was boring. Ken Ham seems to define historical science as opinion or interpretational science. Operational science and its interpretation are two different things; but I suppose I coin this stuff first.

When something is first discovered, its interpretation isn't usually perfect, and it then undergoes remodeling. But such is the nature of science, and I didn't not give Ken Ham this idea.

I am just frustrated by how simplistic that debate was. You seem to feel the same way about it.

I didn't actually see the debate. I'm convinced that both sides are fundamentally wrong, so I wasn't that interested in watching it. All I know about the debate comes from the comments of those who watched it.

I agree that INTERPRETATION of scientific data is an important issue, but this enters "observational science" as well. Some areas of science have fairly direct, non-controversial interpretations, while other areas have very indirect, convoluted interpretations. In fact, some areas of "observational" science (e.g. particle physics) are much more indirect and "iffy" than some areas of "historical" science. Thus I believe the distinction between "observational" and "historical" is wrong. A better distinction would be something that distinguishes "direct" from "indirect" in the interpretations.

[Vertetuesi]

The most lasting image in the public's view so far seems to be the respective answers to the "What would make you change your mind?" question, with Nye answering "evidence" and Ham answering "nothing".

Several people here (and atheists commenting elsewhere after the debate) have really gone to town on Ham's answer - but virtually nobody (bar perhaps Nico) has held up a critical eyeglass to Nye's. So here goes.

I'll credit Nye with being honest and sincere in stating that (he believes that) "evidence" would change his mind about it. In which case, the best that can be said is that he innocently told an untruth. He does not let "evidence" change his mind on evolution or the age of the earth etc.

A simple example: dinosaurs. The only direct evidence anyone has regarding (an upper limit to) their age comes from the contents of their bones, viz. (a) soft tissue including unstable large molecules, and (b) carbon 14. Both of these considerations definitely imply that the bones are less than a million years old, the second implies that they are well under 100,000 years old. I said "direct" evidence, because even Richard Dawkins has implicitly admitted that none exists for their being tens of millions of years old - saying that one has to radiodate rocks below and above those where dinosaurs are buried.

So why does Nye continue to believe that dinosaurs are over 65 million years old? Why, he can even continue to believe the earth is billions of years old, if he really wants to - just recalibrate elsewhere to allow for the only direct dinosaur dating evidence we currently possess.

The fact that he doesn't do this, shows that his reply simply isn't true. If I'd been in Ham's position I'd have pounced all over Nye as soon as the word "evidence" was out of his mouth.

Meanwhile, I accept to some degree the criticism made of Ham's reply - which was a microcosm of the criticism by some creationists e.g. at CMI that Ham had emphasised presuppositionalism so much that he left little space for evidence-related considerations. But that's something for the rest of the threads in this forum, lol

[Catholicity]

Who necroed???

[Kbertsche]

A simple example: dinosaurs. The only direct evidence anyone has regarding (an upper limit to) their age comes from the contents of their bones, viz. (a) soft tissue including unstable large molecules,

Reference from the scientific literature, please?

I am aware that YECs make lots of similar claims, but these claims are not true. What has been reported by Mary Schweitzer and others is fossilized internal structures of bone. The original structure is preserved, but NOT the original tissue.

and (b) carbon 14.

Again, a reference from the scientific literature, please?

Yes, YEC groups claim to have detected C-14 in dinosaur bone. But generally the samples were submitted deceptively, were not prepared properly, and the measurement backgrounds were underestimated. The radiocarbon that they detect is nothing more than sample contamination and measurement background.