"Science Guy’ Bill Nye vs. Creationist Ken Ham: Who Will Win the Big Debate?

reply to post by WarminIndy

While you are attempting to dispute my claims, even Popper himself teaches that dogmatic science exists.

I am not going to line by line and address everything you can throw up on the screen. You have not adressed even a fraction of what I have posted if you did I may be inclined to reciprocate.

No, I mispresented nothing

Yes you did.

Who is Popper anyway? I didn't see you challenge anything on that.

Why should I? By the way have you ever heard of logical fallacies?

Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common logical fallacy.
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.

After listening to your video I will not watch any more that you present because you wasted my time. He in no way said "science" is dogmatic. In fact the video if "you" even listened to it said the same thing I have been saying.

Falsifability In Principle states that neither the past nor future can be measured.

Then you should not have a problem quoting where that is stated. By the way this is what "Karl" since you like him had to say about falsifiabilitylink

Evolution is not scientifically proven.

Ha-ha-ha you have to be trolling now.

Even when he says evolution based on his own priori, he says we have to get out of that idea that is not well-tuned for seeking atoms and galaxies.

Are you familiar with the definition of a priori I am not sure why you keep dropping the "a" from it.

a pri·o·ri adjective \ˌä-prē-ˈȯr-ē, ˌa-; ˌā-(ˌ)prī-ˈȯr-ˌī, -ˌprē-ˈȯr-ē\
: relating to what can be known through an understanding of how certain things work rather than by observation

Full Definition of A PRIORI

1
a : deductive
b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori
c : presupposed by experience
2
a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive
b : formed or conceived beforehand

You then go on to quote mine some more from another. Again you take it out of context. That is a very dishonest tactic however I did enjoy the article SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY as science isn't about certainty. It is quite the opposite as it questions everything the very opposite of religions that feel it is all settled and infallible.

Evolution then becomes less certain.

Actually evolution is much like gravity as it is both fact and theory ( would you like to know why? )as well as being the most tested and verified subjects in science.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Presumptive in the definition? yes.

Trolling on my part? no.

Dismissive on your part? Yes.

Anything else?

You SHOULD know Popper, he's the guy taught most in Philosophical Science courses and well-known in the scientific community. The mere fact that you don't know Popper, shows me that you have little interest in actual science.

His terms are bandied about in science, including Falsifiability and pseudo-science. Also he introduced "critical rationalism".

reply to post by WarminIndy

Presumptive in the definition? yes.

?

Trolling on my part? no.

Sure you are.

Dismissive on your part? Yes.

Well yes if I see you being deceptive when quoting someone of authority. As any person should.

Anything else?

?

You SHOULD know Popper, he's the guy taught most in Philosophical Science courses and well-known in the scientific community. The mere fact that you don't know Popper, shows me that you have little interest in actual science.

Why do you "presume" that I don't know of him? I feel no need to adress your quote mining is all. BTW I guess you didn't bother reading the link to what he had to say. I don't think you have realy read your own sources for comprehension as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have taken out of context quotes throughout the nite to present on your behalf.

His terms are bandied about in science, including Falsifiability and pseudo-science. Also he introduced "critical rationalism".

Yup.

So are you planing to present anything to back up your claim that science not "scientists" is dogmatic?

Here I will provide you with the definition of dogma. If you can find an instance where science is dogmatic please specify which definition you are using and explain how it qualifies.

dog·ma (dôg′mə, dŏg′-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:

reply to post by Grimpachi


Grimpachi

As it was very late and I chose to go to sleep and then readdress you this morning, here is my response.

As you couldn't fathom the possibility of dogmatism within the scientific community, do you believe the current evolutionary model?

I have 2.9% Neanderthal in my genome, that doesn't fit with the current evolutionary model. This is a new discovery that now scientists are trying to determine just how this is possible. Do I need to show you my 23 and Me account to prove this about my genetic testing? And yet, may scientists are still holding to Darwinian evolution. Why? Because it worked for them, regardless of new information and data.

I carefully chose only scientific sources to make my rebuttals from, not one of them was from religious sites or Creationist sites. As those are unacceptable for you, and hence you call me a troll based on your own unacceptance and attempts to dissuade the very argument raging within the scientific community itself, would you call every scientist who no longer believe in Darwinian evolution also trolls when they talk about how they once held to Darwinian evolution and now don't?

You simply are going to have to address dogma within the scientific community, as the scientific community grapples with it also. Just because you don't want to see the elephant in the room doesn't mean the elephant is pink or blue or even big, it means the elephant is in the room. You must be comfortable with the elephant being in the room, however, others are not. And many who are not, are scientists.

Bio Science From Oxford Journal

One essential feature of empirical science is that the truth or falsity of its theories cannot be definitively established.

I didn't make that up, scientists did. Choose to ignore that statement if you wish. Consequently, Evolutionary theory based on empirical evidence can never be definitive. Truth or falsity, will never be definitive. But as you propose, it must be definitive because you believe it to be, doesn't make it so.

While the above link is about challenging dogma within the theories about ecology, the same concept applies toward the Theory of Evolution, because it is still called a theory, so theoretically, evolution is nothing more than dogma. So why the demand that others accept it as definitive if even scientists cannot prove the truth or falsity of it? If there is no truth definitive in evolution, then it's just you who are a Dogmatic Darwinian.

Science should leave dogmatism to religion if it is to continue to be a rational enterprise, for rational knowledge of reality is admittedly fallible. We agree with Miller (1999) when he states that giving science its conjectural character back might reduce the number of disappointed people who increase the legions of irrationalism (although we think that the absolute skepticism he advocates is not an answer, because beliefs are simply inevitable; see Bunge 2001, chap. 7).

Do you know who said this?

The ideas in this paper were originally presented at a symposium of the Second World Meeting on International Education, Integration and Development, held at Buenos Aires (Argentina) 28-30 July 1999.

Educators said this and made the claim that dogmatism within the scientific community exists, whether or not people want to see it. The website is the American Institute of Biological Science. As I am 2.9% Neanderthal, as well as Todd Disotell, then Darwinian evolution no longer is applicable. Your side now has to tell us how it is possible outside of Darwinian evolution, are you prepared for the many changes and upcoming changes to the once revered model?

The Ascent of Man is no longer that. Why is it important now that Neanderthal percentages are in the AMH genome? Because it disputes Out of Africa. It disputes Darwinian evolution. Even Todd Disotell bragged that he has 2.9% Neanderthal, he said that is apparently unique, it is not unique, I have that much and other people have more.

Given that Neanderthal DNA is now shown presently in those of European descent, and not found in those in Africa, it now challenges the evolutionary model. Facts and evidence that Carl Linnaeus and Charles Darwin didn't have. But as your side has never presented empirical evidence of the primordial goo that your side claims life crawled out of, you also do not have the empirical evidence to support any theory between the Big Bang to man standing upright. You are a hominid, one that science calls Anatomically Modern Human, yet if you are European descent, chances are you have Neanderthal ancestry, of which science previously taught us was impossible.

You need facts and we don't read anything else? You have facts, but chose to make the facts fit within your own view of the world. Are you then dogmatic based on that? Yes, because you have faith in the evolutionary model that has no empirical evidence of goo-swimming pre-mammalian biocreatures.

Evolution and the Future

The big-brain vision has no real scientific basis. The fossil record of skull sizes over the past several thousand generations shows that our days of rapid increase in brain size are long over. Accordingly, most scientists a few years ago would have taken the view that human physical evolution has ceased. But DNA techniques, which probe genomes both present and past, have unleashed a revolution in studying evolution; they tell a different story

Once held as scientific, the big brain theory, now out the window. No scientific basis but once taught as scientific. Can you see now the dogmatism? Where's the empirical evidence of primordial soup? Can you show me? It's a theory, and you dismiss Creationism as not acceptable because you need empirical evidence and yet there is no empirical evidence for the very premise of how life arose? Dogmatism.

reply to post by WarminIndy

do you believe the current evolutionary model?

I have 2.9% Neanderthal in my genome, that doesn't fit with the current evolutionary model. This is a new discovery that now scientists are trying to determine just how this is possible. Do I need to show you my 23 and Me account to prove this about my genetic testing? And yet, may scientists are still holding to Darwinian evolution. Why? Because it worked for them, regardless of new information and data.

Why do you think that because neanderthal DNA is present day humans that it somehow goes against evolution? That is a well known fact today and has been for some time. Neanderthals and us shared a common ancestor at one point and the fact that we have some of their DNA now means that encounters between the two kinds of hominins produced offspring. How does that go against evolution in your mind?

I carefully chose only scientific sources to make my rebuttals from, not one of them was from religious sites or Creationist sites.

Yet none of them claims what you claim, and none were examples of science being dogmatic. Remember a person can be dogmatic but "science" (see the emphasis) is not.

As those are unacceptable for you, and hence you call me a troll based on your own unacceptance and attempts to dissuade the very argument raging within the scientific community itself, would you call every scientist who no longer believe in Darwinian evolution also trolls when they talk about how they once held to Darwinian evolution and now don't?

I said you were Trolling because you said "Evolution is not scientifically proven" when in fact it is. Did you happen to open the links I provided they would explain why you are wrong.

You simply are going to have to address dogma within the scientific community, as the scientific community grapples with it also.

Give your examples of science dogma. You have not as of yet so I have nothing to address.

Just because you don't want to see the elephant in the room doesn't mean the elephant is pink or blue or even big, it means the elephant is in the room. You must be comfortable with the elephant being in the room, however, others are not. And many who are not, are scientists.

Why don't you just list examples of where science is dogmatic? Why do you keep avoiding giving an example?

"One essential feature of empirical science is that the truth or falsity of its theories cannot be definitively established."


I didn't make that up, scientists did. Choose to ignore that statement if you wish. Consequently, Evolutionary theory based on empirical evidence can never be definitive. Truth or falsity, will never be definitive. But as you propose, it must be definitive because you believe it to be, doesn't make it so.

You do not seem to grasp that we can, have, and still do witness and record evolution taking place.

50,000 generations of bacteria prove that evolution never stops

While the above link is about challenging dogma within the theories about ecology, the same concept applies toward the Theory of Evolution, because it is still called a theory, so theoretically, evolution is nothing more than dogma. So why the demand that others accept it as definitive if even scientists cannot prove the truth or falsity of it? If there is no truth definitive in evolution, then it's just you who are a Dogmatic Darwinian.

Evolution can be falsified if any of these can be shown.

If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. If you can show any of those then you will have disproved evolution. Have at it. Tear it up. I look forward to reading your paper.

Educators said this and made the claim that dogmatism within the scientific community exists, whether or not people want to see it.

Do you even read what you quote from?

Therefore, an extreme empiricist approach naively pretending to work only with facts would be just a blind approach, making it impossible for researchers to recognize their own prejudices (hidden accepted theories or hypotheses), and people cannot subject to criticism that which is hidden from them. Thought should be “moving” before hands start to move. Enter the role of lectures: These may sometimes contribute to a particular process of inquiry, guiding the students in posing ecological problems and making them aware of the theoretical framework any possible question assumes. For example, some lectures encouraging epistemological or methodological discussion of the importance of assumptions in scientific research would encourage students to be more suspicious of—and therefore less vulnerable to—fashionable theories or practices.

The educator explained what he was talking about. He warns against becoming dogmatic to simply believe what they are told and encourages educators to pose problems for students to solve where the answer is not supplied so they come to their own conclusions using the scientific methods. Again you have not supplied of an example where science requires belief which is essential to it being dogma.

As I am 2.9% Neanderthal, as well as Todd Disotell, then Darwinian evolution no longer is applicable. Your side now has to tell us how it is possible outside of Darwinian evolution, are you prepared for the many changes and upcoming changes to the once revered model?

The Ascent of Man is no longer that. Why is it important now that Neanderthal percentages are in the AMH genome? Because it disputes Out of Africa. It disputes Darwinian evolution. Even Todd Disotell bragged that he has 2.9% Neanderthal, he said that is apparently unique, it is not unique, I have that much and other people have more.

Given that Neanderthal DNA is now shown presently in those of European descent, and not found in those in Africa, it now challenges the evolutionary model. Facts and evidence that Carl Linnaeus and Charles Darwin didn't have.

Actually you need to explain why the fact that some humans share DNA with Neanderthals somehow disproves evolution. You have not done so.

Western Eurasia yielded a rich Middle (MP) and Late Pleistocene (LP) fossil record documenting the evolution of the Neandertals that can be analyzed in light of recently acquired paleogenetical data, an abundance of archeological evidence, and a well-known environmental context. Their origin likely relates to an episode of recolonization of Western Eurasia by hominins of African origin carrying the Acheulean technology into Europe around 600 ka.

The origin of Neandertals

So we shared a common ancestor in the same region, and both groups migrated out of Africa at different times to later interbreed. That supports evolution. Sorry you didn't look into it. Both races originated in Africa.

But as your side has never presented empirical evidence of the primordial goo that your side claims life crawled out of

That is why abiogenesis is a Hypothesis.

you also do not have the empirical evidence to support any theory between the Big Bang to man standing upright.

Evidence for big bangEvidence for human evolution

Once held as scientific, the big brain theory, now out the _ No scientific basis but once taught as scientific. Can you see now the dogmatism?

The big brain theory was a TV show. There was no such Scientific Theory called the big brain theory.


You have yet to show evidence that science requires belief. Belief is essential to dogma. Without that element your (laymans) theory of science is dogma falls flat.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Grimpachi

As I quoted directly from the websites from what the authors have said, you then need to dispute the authors. Notice those little boxes with text in them? Not my words, their words.

I am sorry if the professor of physics says that science "proves" nothing and neither is it certain. That's not my problem to deal with as he is on your side.

My original thesis was that science is dominated by dogmatism. I have proven that by the very scientific websites from very scientific scientists who make the statements. I am sorry, but a charge of dogmatism made within the scientific community from scientists toward scientists, then my thesis holds true, so many scientists are dogmatic that it is a problem.

The next issue arises from the problem of dogmatism, whether or not it prevents scientists from interpreting the data consistently, yes, this has been shown to be a problem, not only by Popper, but a host of scientists.

The next issue is whether or not that scientific data is also not interpreted outside of a priori, and whether or not the scientist is willing to to concede to newer data to adjust theories. Yes, it has been shown that some scientists are very much like that and those scientists are very well-known and mainstream.

The next issue arises from the belief that science is concrete and certain. As indicated by several scientists, no it is not.

The next issue is the current Evolutionary Model, based on Darwin and Linnaeus, whether or not it accurately portrays evolution given new evidence to the contrary. It does not.

The last issue is this, whether or not you believe science has proven empirically the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. If you believe it is true then you have disregarded all the other experts on your side that say otherwise. So who is right, you or them?

WarminIndy
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I am sorry if the professor of physics says that science "proves" nothing and neither is it certain. That's not my problem to deal with as he is on your side.

That's because new evidence could come to light at any time in the future that shows our understanding to be incomplete or wrong and science would change its position accordingly. This the polar opposite of dogma.

My original thesis was that science is dominated by dogmatism. I have proven that by the very scientific websites from very scientific scientists who make the statements. I am sorry, but a charge of dogmatism made within the scientific community from scientists toward scientists, then my thesis holds true, so many scientists are dogmatic that it is a problem.

You have done no such thing. Amusingly, your argument (as ill formed and logically inconsistent as it is) actually demonstrates the fluidity of science. You've inadvertently falsified your own hypothesis. It would be dogmatic of you to cling to this position after it has been falsified, wouldn't it now?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that the current Scientific theories are constantly being challenged with new evidence and that new evidence is embraced analyzed and incorporated into the theory. You can say the theories themselves are evolving.

Here are a few recent articles demonstrating.

Natural selection has altered the appearance of Europeans over the past 5,000 years

Cities causing genetic changes in plants, animals

Big Bang Secrets Swirling in a Fluid Universe

Animals' Wing and Fin Motions Share Universal Propulsion Geometry

How evolution shapes the geometries of life

Hello fish face – a fossil fish reveals the origins of the face

Debate over which mammals roamed with the dinosaurs

How We Got On Land, Bone by Bone

'Walking Whale' Fossil Discovered In Peru: 40-Million-Year-Old Specimen May Be Link Between Aquatic and Land Mammals

Clymene Dolphin May Be A Product Of Natural Hybridization

New fossils shed light on the origins of lions, tigers, and bears

What We Learned About Human Origins In 2013 Will Blow Your Mind

Those are just a few. Below just recently using the scientific method a researcher requested her own findings be withdrawn because it could not be verified. It didn't hold up. Where is the required belief in science to be labeled as dogma?

Stem cells: Scientist asks for research to be withdrawn

Author Prof Teruhiko Wakayama said: "It is no longer clear what is right."

The future of regenerative medicine is pinned on stem cells, which can transform into any other type of tissue. They are being investigated for restoring sight to the blind and repairing the damage caused by a heart attack.

'Mistakes have emerged'
The original study, published in the journal Nature, became a huge story around the world and was described as "remarkable" and as a "major scientific discovery".

It said stem cells no longer needed to be taken from embryos or made by complicated and costly genetic tinkering.

Instead, shocking skin cells with acid could drive them back into a stem cell state.

The breakthrough findings have not been discredited, but they have come under intense scrutiny.

The Reuters news agency reports Prof Wakayama, of the University of Yamanashi, told Japanese TV: "When conducting the experiment, I believed it was absolutely right.

"But now that many mistakes have emerged, I think it is best to withdraw the research paper once and, using correct data and correct pictures, to prove once again the paper is right.

"If it turns out to be wrong, we would need to make it clear why a thing like this happened."

You have not made a evidence based case that science is stepped in dogma.



No step in the diagram says "Believe".

reply to post by Grimpachi


Well done Grimp! Enjoyed reading your replies, I couldn't have said it better myself.

P.S. Check your PM's..

reply to post by Grimpachi


Then why do you believe it?

If no step in the process asks for belief, then why do you believe it?

Just because you don't want to accept dogmatism in the scientific community, then perhaps you need to challenge those scientists making the claim. You haven't done that, all you have done is say "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong".

Am I wrong or are those scientists making the claim wrong? Unless you can prove that not one single scientists makes the claim, then I am not wrong. I said it is pervasive enough that the scientific community is addressing it. If there were no problem, the scientific community would not be addressing it.

Is the scientific community addressing it? Yes or no.

reply to post by WarminIndy

Then why do you believe it?

If no step in the process asks for belief, then why do you believe it?

Some things I do not personally believe. Some things I simply think are plausible explanations some I do not even think that. I am not required to believe any of it. As for the things I do believe the simple answer: Because I can review replicate and verify findings on any given subject. No belief or faith in any of it if I doubt any particular finding all I need is the motivation to do the work myself to either verify or falsify the findings and if I can falsify the findings then those findings once verified will be celebrated not shunned.

Sorry that is as simple an explanation as I can give for my own stance.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Grim, brilliantly said!

Grimpachi
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Then why do you believe it?

If no step in the process asks for belief, then why do you believe it?

Some things I do not personally believe. Some things I simply think are plausible explanations some I do not even think that. I am not required to believe any of it. As for the things I do believe the simple answer: Because I can review replicate and verify findings on any given subject. No belief or faith in any of it if I doubt any particular finding all I need is the motivation to do the work myself to either verify or falsify the findings and if I can falsify the findings then those findings once verified will be celebrated not shunned.

Sorry that is as simple an explanation as I can give for my own stance.

OK, I can agree with that stance. That's fair.

My stance is that even though I believe in a Creator, hence the Unmoved Mover or Causal Agent, or whatever one wants to call it, I do believe in the plausibility of Selective Breeding. Nothing rules that out for me.

I am not a scientist, I am more of a philosopher, so weighing out what is called evidence, for me, means that I choose to remain skeptical of peoples' interpretation of anything. That includes religion and science. I am not a very Orthodox Christian. However, from my perspective, as nothing rules out a Creator, because nothing has been shown to rule it out, then I am free to accept that.

What I dislike is hearing from either side "You must believe it because I say so". Why?