Bill should go back to quiet administrative work. This can't be good for his BP. Ken Ham can make an ass out of himself without Bill's help.
I read the creationist "questions" and thought they had to be trolling, some of those questions are really really basically answered and was "taught" to them in grade school... But i am glad to see someone took the time to actually answer those stupid questions...
Ken Ham is full of shit and here is why. Only Creationism is attached to a particular worldview, and their metric of the validity of evidence is whether or not it comforms the Creation model. In other words, according to Ham, there is nothing that would prove the Creation model wrong, because if evidence suggested that the Creation model was wrong, it would mean that the evidence is wrong. That is clear and obvious crap. Now, in the scientific model, we are not attached to any particular model. We strongly support the Big Bang theory as the origin of the universe, because all of the available evidence (and there is lots) supports it as the best model. If new evidence came in to show that our current model was wrong, we would embrace it and update/refine our current understanding to be more correct. Science is simply better than Creationism, because it is based on actual data and it changes according to new data. Even more, the way that scientific models change with new data is that they get more refined and precise. Furthermore, we can make predictions, based on the models, and then perform experiments to check the predictions. Creationism simply cannot do that. The notion that "anything can happen" is simply wrong. In fact, we can rule out a 6,000 year old world and universe beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are human civilzations that have been disvoered that existed at times more than 6,000 years ago. Evidence of these can be found in the venus figurines. Furthermore, radioactive dataing techniques are incredibly accurate. As for the universe, we know that it is older than 6,000 years because we recieve light from stars and galaxies that are much, much farther away than 6,000 light years. This would simply be impossible in a 6,000-year-old universe. We know the age of the universe precisesly because of the Friedmann equation and the Lambda-CDM model. These are not guesses or speculations. These are measurements and observations. In reality, what Ken Ham refers to as "historical science" is really a subset of what he refers to as "observational science." In other words, we know the history of the universe, earth, and life through observation and measurement. The scientific model is the correct model because of the massive amount of data supporting it. The Creation model is clearly wrong because of the mass amount of data that outright contradicts it. Because you actually wrote this, it is pretty damn clear that you do not have a basic understanding of how the scientific process works or what a theory means in a scientific context. In science, something can only become a theory if it is well supported by los of data, it makes predictions for future experiments, and future experiments give results consistent with those predictions. That is why evolution is a theory. That is why Big Bang cosmology is a theory. That is why quantum mechanics is a theory. I could go on. Scientific theories are not baseless speculations or random guesses. They are well-supported explanations of the data.
No what it is, is Creationist are trying to make their position look legit in the eyes of the public, thats why they wanna "debate" scientists...they don't think their actually going to convert them, they are just trying to make their claims "true" by them being in the same context as real science...its not They want their views to be taught in school that is their ultimate goal with "debates" like these... But like i seen a parent said of their child watching the debate "it's not fair that the weird guy (Ken Ham) gets to use his imagination and the science guy (Bill Nye of course!) has to use facts"
On the snow layer thing Snow falls for a winter. Then spring and summer come and melt the snow, then it re-freeze's int he fall, making and icey layer, upon which new snow falls for the next year making...another layer. That's why they correlate one layer with one year, and it's based on observational science. On a side note: creation scientists scare me and the people who listen to them are even scarier. My buddy told me about when he went to church when he was younger a guy literally came in and presented a presentation about how the dinosaurs are fake. That was when my friend stopped believing in the church
Oh god. I would throw that kid a birthday party were I his parent, regardless of it being his birthday or not. ok im embarrassed. Layer thickness may vary; layers do not. Thank you. "biblical" evidence - you know there are many, many religions with their own creationism theories? Why is the bible more true than them?
to me the bible is bull fuckery hail satan. lol , was just trying to make a point , maybe I should have said all religious texts.
could there be multiple layers made per snowfall season? what if you have a warm couple days and it melts stuff and gets cold again?
In Antarctica it's going to get warm enough to melt several feet of snow? There are other lines of evidence that correlate with the ice thing. Rings of tree's for example change in response to cold weather, as well as other things. They can go back and compare all these things and say "oh look about X amount of time ago something made these layers different in all these lines of evidence" Seriously Ken Ham is full of shit
idk man, it doesnt seem impossible to me that snow could perhaps melt there before the spring. but i have no clue. either way, lets say its near spring and starting to melt and they get a few cold days. refreeze and additional layers? it just doesnt seem implausible to me that snow melt isnt a very accurate way to count years.
They use glaciers to count years If the snow melts before the spring it's not a glacier. So it's going to melt near spring and then for some reason it's going to snow a bunch also right near spring? And remember its a rough estimate and they use other lines of evidence to support it. No one is running around claiming just because of these ice layers this is true.
that jackass crackpot fucktard ken hamshit knows jackshit putting all those successful people on like successful people cant fall pray too bullshit storys...and that fuck DR that said the the world was created in six 24 hour days??where the fuck we get the seventh day?did the sacralist regime create it just too spit god the creationist?im sorry but talking to fuckjobs like that is pointless..
oh im noy trying to say i side with ken or that its all bullshit or anything. just looking for more info because i really didnt know a whole lot on the matter
Shows how much I know about science lol I've been out of the game for too long, that's what being a working man does to you Gottta start reading again