I’ll just leave that here.
I don’t think I’m familiar enough with his work to give an opinion, sorry. Though it sounds like interesting stuff I should check out.
No one tells it best than the man himself : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-computer.html
I know I haven’t written in like 8 months, but ask me some questions !
Only “Why haven’t you written in like 8 months” is not allowed (and some others, let’s be honest).
Even though it is painful to say and hear, I don’t think it is a fight we can win (maybe with time and with proper education about evolution, not with a single debate that only people who are interested will watch, therefore with a preconceived idea in mind anyway), so for the time being I wish we would stop talking about it while adverstising Ken Ham’s stupid museum.
Though I’ll admit, it is quite fun to watch.
I like you Tumblr but sometimes your lack of sources annoys the hell out of me. And by “Tumblr” I speak of course of its users, and by “annoys the hell out of me” I mean “you make me want to rip all my hair out one at the time with blunt tweezers”.
One of the first sentences of mister Ham "We’re seeing people being indoctrinated to believe that creationists can’t become scientists"… even using the word “indoctrinated” — when he’s the owner the creation museum that put an ad at the very start of the debate stating that kids under 12 have free entry — is rich.
"Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era" I hope you’ve got proof because I’m not convinced.
"Define terms correctly" HERE WE GO AGAIN. I would like if creationnists, for once, would stop “defining terms” and creating arbitrary and sometimes wrong boundaries where they don’t need to be.
First argument (in his opening statement) and second argument : "Look at these people, there’s a scientist who’s also an atheist, there’s a scientist who’s also a young earth creationist”. No one cares. If I’m not wrong the theme of the debate is “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era ?” therefore the fact that the inventor of the MRI machine is a creationist is completely irrelevant.
Next up, Danny Faulkner, an astronomer. Okay, we’re getting there. Any argument to why the earth is thought to be 6000 years old ? “There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation.” that smug smile makes me think you’re not convinced what you’re saying is actually true, am I wrong ?
We weren’t there thousands of years ago so we can’t say that the laws governing the world today aren’t the laws governing the world at that time is another already-heard tired argument. I would go as far as saying that there is no difference between observational science, that Ham seems to respect, and “historical” science. Nothing, in the field of science, is instantaneous, not even observations. All we do is draw conclusions from what happened in the past, whether it be 5 seconds ago, 5 minutes ago, or 5 millions years ago. So every day we have to assume that the world 5 seconds ago is the same as the one we’re seeing right at this instant, and since the results have not been catastrophic (if we remind ourselves of all the wonderful inventions Ken Ham himself stated), the law of probability would say that the laws of nature didn’t drastically change between now and the death of the dinosaurs for example. Humpf, moving on.
Haha I love that the next example involved the Grand Canyon, like Bill Nye predicted. So typical.
"There’s a difference between what you actually observe directly and your interpretation" I don’t know if Ken Ham realises that he’s dismissing the entire field of science here. Of COURSE science is all about interpreting what you observe and this interpretation can differ. Though generally interpretation is based on multiple facts gathered from different methods, and not just “feelings”. Just… wow.
"Question to Bill Nye : Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution ?" Nice to put the word “belief” in there. See, I heard that Ken Ham had used all the way through the debate the argument that the non-creationist’s point of view is also a “belief” that what we know came only from naturalistic means. Yeah, I see it now.
"We all have the same evidences", yet we differ on the interpretation. Accuracy of the interpretation should come from the method used : Without even saying anything about the scientific method : they use a book. Let’s think about that for a second.
"Predictions based on the Bible" Oh dear… Let’s see
"evidence confirming an intelligence produced life" okay, what is it ?
"evidence confirming after their kind" this makes no sense but thankfully Ken Ham explains that he is talking about animals always producing a progeny of the same kind. Again this shows that they are somehow lacking a grasp of evolution concepts, that is that big changes between animals will appear after extremely long periods of time. Plus families and species are a man-made concept based on homologies between morphologies, therefore if we accept that differences can appear between individuals of a species, why is it so inconceivable to accept that those changes can, after a long long while, be translated into a class or family completely different from the one we started with ?
"evidence of a global flood" again, what is that evidence ? We heard from the Grand Canyon, that’s true… I don’t want to be rude but The United States aren’t the entire world.
"evidence confirming one race", cause that’s not a statement we would expect from men who wrote the Bible.
"evidence confirming the tower of Babel"…
"evidence confirming a young Universe" I’m tired.
"When you consider the classification system, that kind of Genesis I really is more at the family level of classification. For instance there’s one dog kind, one cat kind…" this diagram looks so stupid I can’t even find a single thing to say about it. “DOG KIND” Are you all seriously 5 years old ??
"You wouldn’t need all the species of dogs [on the Arch], just two" I’m guessing it’s a mistake here because you would only need two individuals of only one “species” of the “dog kind” to get all the others or… I don’t even fucking know, why am I trying to be logical here.
And if we follow this logic, counting the fact the we are very, very similar genetically to monkeys, we should have a common ancestor, right ? “No, men are special” Yeah I thought so.
Andrew Fabich is a microbiologist working on E. Coli and who doesn’t believe in evolution. I would like him to explain the famous bacterial resistance by magic.
"You can show the earth is not flat, there’s a video from the Galileo spacecraft showing the earth […] you can’t observe the age of the earth" And you know what doesn’t agree with a spherical earth ? The Bible. Crazy, I know.
"I believe it’s the creationists that should be educating the kids out there" Of course you do.
I’ve been caught up in school stuff so I haven’t had the time to check it out yet, but I definitely will soon. Did you ? What did you think about it ?
Hello to all the new followers ! You can ask me something :)