Close Combat Series :: View topic - Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:02 am
—
Anyone watch it? It was pretty good I thought. http://debatelive.org/

Evolution vs Creationism

Being pretty much a non believer I thought Bill Nye made lots of good points. Ken Ham, when asked for proof of his views could only say it was the word of God. That doesn't cut it for me.

Much of the debate revolved around the age of the earth. Ken used a quote from a creationist astronomer that said something like, "There's no evidence in astronomy that contradicts a 6000 year old earth." WHAT??? I might as well say, "There's no evidence in this Oh Henry bar that the moon doesn't exist!" Bill Nye brought up scientific dating methods. Ken also brought up those methods and questioned why they didn;t always come to the same answer.

Dinosaurs didn't come up really. However a picture of Ken Hams creationist museum has a life size dinosaur model out front. Do they believe we walked the earth with dinosaurs somewhere in the last few thousand years?

Ken tried to make a difference in historical science vs observational science, which is what we see now. One of his examples... just because a ring on a tree means one year today doesn't mean it meant one year in the past. This came about from trees that are over 6000 years old that still live on earth. Basically since we never observed the past, we can't prove what science was used in the past. Science today cannot explain what happened in the past-- he believes this!

Question from audience to Ken. "If evidence was shown to you that the earth is more than 6000 years old, would you still believe in God?" Answer (not a quote), "That would be impossible because it is not Gods word, its impossible to prove the earth is over 6000 years old, no method can ever exist ti prove the earth is older than 6000 years."

All I have to say is WOW. There's reasonable religious folks, and Ken Ham is not one! He interprets the Bible literally, Bible quotes he cannot interpret literally are misunderstandings according to him. I have a name for Ken Ham... CIVILIZED EXTREMEIST

#2: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: HeadClot,

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 5:01 am
—
I watched it on and off.

Bill Nye made some excellent points. However the bible is not meant to be translated literally.

I personally believe in intelligent Design so yeah.

Wikipedia on Intelligent Design

#3: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:06 am
—
Tunnel vision doesn't help anyone...

I believe in morals...

To deny proven history is a problem the believers have to cope with.

But that's not so bad... the vast majority of believers have morals..

#4: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Stwa,

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:57 am
—
OK,

I watched it. I want my 2.5 hours back.

The only thing these debates confirm to me, is man's enormous capacity for deceit, and man's extrodinary ability to counter deceit with addtional deceit.

Nye seems to think that if he can prove the earth is older than 6,000 years, then creationism is totally debunked.

Perhaps Nye is nothing more than a biological accident with a miniscule duration and limited sensory apparatus. Why would any other self respecting life form determine his observations and analysis to be reliable. Not to mention the staggering amounts of faith that must be applied to accept his alternative view of creation.

#5: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: southern_land,

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:37 am
—
So where is Armee grUppe Sud these days? LOL

#6: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:58 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Nye seems to think that if he can prove the earth is older than 6,000 years, then creationism is totally debunked.

He's smarter than that. When you only have a little of an hour to make your points you have to pick your battles. STWA maybe you need a staggering amount of faith to believe in evolution, what would you call the amount of faith to believe in young-earth creationism? If Bill was presented evidence that proved Ken's point of view, Bill would believe! Hes reasonable.

#7: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:49 am
—
This is still driving me nuts. The creation musem actually has dinosaurs with saddles on them. There are videos of humans offering dinosaurs vegetables. They say all types of dinosaurs went onto Noah's Ark, including the Tyrannosaurus.

I really cannot even begin to understand how people believe that! On Trip Advisor one patron rated the museum 5 stars and commended them at accurately displaying history comparing it against the lies the Smithsonian is presenting. I liked America more as world police rather than religious nut cases.

#8: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:48 am
—
Dont Bother With them!
They
Are
Nuts

Primeval,prehuman, and natural history are some of my favorite subjects. Even most Atheist don't understand how the worlds life really came about. Or evolved to what it is. I used to find it hard my self.
And most have a very basic cartooney understanding of the history of life.
I cant watch your video. But if i could im not sure if i would too. Its just infuriating.

Science its not a ideology. Its the best way of investigation.
Creationist will use there own system. They use tricks to to pretend to be scientist.
life is very self centered and the human brain is naturally religious.
People find it difficult to believe that we are just animals like the domesticated cat. But that's just because they have lived in the modern world for to long. And besides us, our kind is completely instinct. 30-14 thousand years ago, They all died out. People dont understand the branch of life.
Most creationist are just biased, brain washed individuals. But they are mostly stupid, or at least ignorant.
You do get intelligent ones like that guy, but that bring me back to a new thing i have discovered.
People will deny, or believe anything. NO MATTER WHAT!
Some people have the ability to make a theory seem believable no matter what.
Try looking up a subject you disagree with.

#9: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:43 pm
—
I think the evolutionary model is pretty lame on their explanations also, and I don't go in for people like Ken Ham who are so dogmatic in their beliefs in spite of the facts or lack of them.

However, I find it interesting that a creationist that I had heard of, who is a retired USAF Colonel with a degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and read his book had, what I considered, pretty intelligent ideas for the creationist model as opposed to the theory of evolution. He had proposed that the waters for the Great Deluge came from inside the Earth. That was many years ago. Now a new study has determined that there is more than three times the water in the Earth than in all the oceans. This info doesn't prove anything except that his theory is plausible.

A number of years ago there was an article that in the process of lifting a large leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus it broke open. To the amazement of the paleontologist who witnessed it there was tissue still in the bone. She was incredulous saying that she was not supposed to be expecting this. Recently I conducted a new search and found out that the reason the authorities gave for is because of iron in the tissue. Now I don’t know about you but from what we have been told all these years about the process of fossilization and the millions of years the dinosaurs died out this is a pretty lame explanation.

#10: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:43 pm
—
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html
Why lame? It seems like the best exsplanation?
Im not a scientist or know alot about chemistry. But its hey, a amazing story.

#11: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:57 pm
—
How is it that I've been here for 48 years and there's never been a 1,2,3 or 400 year mission to find Noah's Ark or the Ten Commandments.
But we look for and find Dinosaur Bones?

How is it that not one country in this world has a crusade to find all these so called Biblical treasures from the past?

Just a month or two ago my son Michael asked me if we were smarter now than those before us?
My answer to him was how can we be smarter when we still don't know how they built the Pyramids?
How does that information get lost?
Was it so simple back then they just assumed everyone else would know?

How is it that we have so many different beliefs,so many different religions and yet so few artifacts?
But we can find bones in the ground.

We can sponsor a dig for dinosaur bones,but not a search for biblical history?

How the hell does that happen?
And not only that but how the hell does that happen for over 200 freaking years?

Is the answer because their isn't any God,Allah or whatever the F you call him?

We see Germs grow or mutate we see wildlife come/go.
We see what happens to life when introduced to this or that and how its life is effected.

Where the hell is your religious Proof?

Ohhhh that's right.................
its in your book.

You have a Book and if its written so it must be true.

Lets be even more simple shall we?
If Religion and Evolution were a crime Scene where would the majority of the FACTS Lie?

P.S
I didn't watch your stupid video so I have no idea if I'm even properly participating in this conversation.
I' just had a few beers and stayed at a Holiday Inn.

#12: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:23 pm
—
Actually Anthony_nz, I was a firm believer in the theory of evolution according to the drawings in the Time/Life Evolution book, faithfully following the supposed transition from fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to ape, to human. Then when I started to look at some of the fossil evidence in a different light, that is, devoid of the theory of evolution, I started to realize a number of the fallacies that have been perpetrated on an unknowing public. Many times these supposed findings by the scientific community have been found to be false and yet the science books are still littered with the fallacies as truth. Without spending much time on any of them, just look up the falsehood that is Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

#13: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: mooxe,

Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:50 pm
—

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

findings by the scientific community have been found to be false

Constantly challenging theories and findings to discover the truth. That's good science.

#14: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: southern_land,

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:18 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

How is it that I've been here for 48 years and there's never been a 1,2,3 or 400 year mission to find Noah's Ark or the Ten Commandments.

Ummmm yes there have been several missions to find the ark, in fact both of them, Noah's and the ark of the covenant

http://www.icr.org/article/209/

http://www.baseinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=68

http://www.levitt.com/essays/ark.html

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/resources/overview/

http://www.lamblion.com/articles/articles_issues10.php

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

http://www.wyattmuseum.com/arkofthecovenant.htm

#15: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:01 am
—
Yes. There have been many attempts to find the ark. If there was a great flood, we would know about it. Just like we know about the sudden great catastrophic floods in northern America during the ice age.

@ Schmal_Turm.
I must respectfully ask, Whats your point?
Do you believe there is a great conspiracy to hide the truth? Or just that the common excepted scientist understanding is wrong?

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

Actually Anthony_nz, I was a firm believer in the theory of evolution according to the drawings in the Time/Life Evolution book, faithfully following the supposed transition from fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to mammal, to ape, to human..

Human evolution has nothing to do with a drawing like that.
It all comes back to my original point. Most people have a very cartoony understanding of evolution. Its not surprising. I used to not get it my self. You cant look it as a single species evolving from one thing to the other.
Im not very good at expressing my thoughts through text. Let alone a complex subject like this. But hey!
The first creatures to walk the earth. (Lets say the fish) is no more related to humans than the elephant. Try not to look at it as such a direct decedent type of thing.
Im just expressing thoughts "Schmal_Turm, i hope im not jumping the gun or patronizing you.

Its just like i cant stand it when people say Birds evolved from dinosuars. NO! Birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs.
A T-Rex did NOT gradually grow smaller and smaller into a particular species of bird. Or any bird.
Nor did the Feathery raptor.

In my observations life seems to follow a type of prototype or blue print. For example i have read about creatures that lived before dinosaurs that in my personal view, resemble and function the same as the rhino.

There is no doubt we are a form of ape. Its important to know that there WAS a diverse range of us. A intelligent, standing ape. Unlike any other ape that lives today. But uniquely like us in characteristics and behavior.
Why theirs just us and what happened to The "other smart apes" is a different subject.

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

Many times these supposed findings by the scientific community have been found to be false and yet the science books are still littered with the fallacies as truth. Without spending much time on any of them, just look up the falsehood that is Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

Yes. I don't no what your underlying point is yet. But its perfectly understandable for there to be mistakes. (books don't disrepair needless to say). Im sure new books are no being printed with outdated or wrong info)

Look at some of the extremely wrong drawings of the world map.
Space books only a few decades old can be almost laughably wrong about the number of moons the planet has.
I have no dout humans understanding and identification of the human anatomy has been a slow walk up hill.
I think Leonardo Da Vinci finally made the best drawings. Then im presuming after martin Luther it got better. And im sure despite perfection of the Da Vincis drawings it has improved in the last 100 or even 40 years. I'm guessing.
I know it blew feudal japans mind when they discovered Europeans understanding of anatomy.

But most of the time its just improvisation,improvements and new discoveries that unlock mystery. Rarely is it a gross mistake or deception. And if they are guilty of that. Then they are not real scientist. Its fascinating the information that scientist admit to not knowing. And they should be carefully to clarify what theory and what is not known.

Ernst Haeckel died in 1919.

I'm not sure i entirely understand the controversy around his drawings? Are they not accurate?
Does he imply the early stages of evolution can be seen in the embryo some how?
I did some brief reading. Looks very complicated. I know he was criticized.

#16: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:03 pm
—
Anthony_nz,

No, I do not feel that you are patronizing me in any way.

As far as the picture of human evolution presented, that is how the Time/Life publishers decided to show the Theory of Evolution. Mind you, it is supposedly still a theory, yet presented as fact. That is the fallacy that I and a whole host of persons were allowed to swallow. The idea presented all the time today is that humans are 98% compatible with the chimpanzees; only problem is that 2% difference is something like 300 DNA strands. Seems to me that’s quite a chasm to cross to make humans fit into the evolutionary picture.

The idea you mentioned of the dinosaurs being nothing but big birds, or the reverse, that the birds are remnants of the dinosaurs, that is the picture presented by the evolutionary paleontologists for public consumption. That is the standard line today. I remember that the creationists attacked the idea that there really is little fossil evidence for the transitions between species, the so-called missing link. When the evidence was clearly lacking, if not non-existent, then out of the blue comes Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. They proposed back in 1972 that the reason there was very little fossil evidence is because evolution actually proceeded by dramatic jumps, calling it punctuated equilibrium. This was really critical to the whole scheme of evolution as Charles Darwin mentioned in his book, Origin of the Species, that without these transitional fossils his theory would fall apart.

As far as the falsehoods in the books: I was referring primarily to the school books where it has been shown that the same falsehoods are still being presented.

The Haeckel drawings were shown to be contrived in a way to show a similarity that isn’t there of the young embryos of the different creatures shown in order to supposedly show the evolutionary link.

Yeah, I believe that there is a concerted effort by the scientific community to hide the truth from us when it doesn't fit in with the standard evolutionary line.

#17: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: HogansHeros,

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:29 pm
—

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

Theory of Evolution. Mind you, it is supposedly still a theory, yet presented as fact.

Just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, plate tectonic theory, atomic theory, cell theory, the theory of relativity . . .

#18: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:02 am
—
I think there is little fossil evidence because there is just not that many fossils to find. Its so rare.
More so with Hominid and Humanoids. Due to there lifestyle and historically low numbers.

Did dinosaurs not have feathers? Fly? I believe modern style birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs.

Schmal_Turm what are your beliefs about life on earth for the last 3.5 billion years? Out of interest. Ill probably get more specific later on.
Such as, how olds do you think the earth might be,where did we came from. Do you believe we hybridized with neanderthal or other forms of humans?

Sounds also crazy lol.

#19: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:51 pm
—
Stupid science.

Science-Ruined-Dinosaurs_35638-l.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

118.98 KB

Viewed:

205 Time(s)

#20: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: dj,

Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:46 pm
—
As Morgan Freeman would say on his Science Channel tv show..."how do we know that God himself did not invent evolution"?

#21: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Antony_nz,

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:19 am
—
I know this is a very basic analogy. But if all non red heads were forbidden from reproducing. and in six hundred years everyone would undoubtedly have red hair. I doubt god invented that.
Unless your implying that the passing on of characteristics and the small amount of mutation that always happens, is a act of god. But i doubt it.
So then i always ask, what is god? If you think its a human type entity then i cant help but thinking that's ridiculous and self centered.
But more and more, i find the educated man seems to refine his god to a subtle thing.
Its like they refine god to being the force of life or existence in general. There for im perplexed to why they choose to call it god in the first place.

I understand the gradual development of wings is believable. But there certianly are other things that have come about. Amazing inventions in a animals anatomy. That truly is amazing and its understandable that its hard to believe. I cant think of any example at the moment. But life is mind blowing and amazing.
And all extinctions should be viewed as the ultimate tragedy.

Schmal_Turm hasn't replied to my questions yet. There may be some reasons for that. And i respect that.
Some of these reasons may be. A. He has simply not had the time.(doesn't check forum all the time) B. They are personal questions. C. He thinks im too rigid in my belief system and there is absolutely no point in having a conversation about it with a person like me.

Now granted i don't no his beliefs and probably wont be given a Q&A with him.
But i cant help believing that any one who denies evolution or other things about understood history.
Must believe 2 things.
A. Its because of super natural reasons. Magic... Or
B. The massive cover up. Or a conspiracy theory/belief of extreme proportions.
C. Aliens. Probably the least outrages IMO
This all depends on how much of understood history they deny or refute.

For example i would consider the statement that dinosaurs/neanderthal did not exist would be extreme. But it depends on what there reasons are.
Finally i think this crappy world is as it is, and theirs no such thing as magic.

Added. You can view the process of evolution with breading dogs.
I have literally meet a guy who fully excepted that domesticated dogs of all sizes have been bread directly from wolfs.
He then simply shook his head and could not except that naturally life could be the same.
artificial selection was acceptable but not natural selection. Keep in mind he was 16 years old.
ADDED/
[quote]

Quote:

humans are 98% compatible with the chimpanzees; only problem is that 2% difference is something like 300 DNA strands. Seems to me that’s quite a chasm to cross to make humans fit into the evolutionary picture.

I admit this is a hard one to swallow. I'm not a chimpanzee expert. Nor have i spent time with them.

Keep in mind we are apparently 65% water. And if thats true... well. Looks can be deceptive.

#22: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:00 pm
—
Antony_nz,

So I am finally getting back to you and your questions. I decided that maybe the best way of answering your query is instead of giving you answers to the age of life on the Earth I would give you some points that the person I briefly mentioned, retired USAF officer Walt Brown, made that got me to question my evolution beliefs on the supposed age of the Earth. Mind you, none of this proves anything, as is the same with the theory of evolution; it only gives a person pause to think:

Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years.

Over twenty-seven billion tons of sediments, primarily from our rivers, are entering the oceans each year. Obviously, this rate of sediment transport has not been constant and has probably been decreasing as the looser top soil has been removed. But even if it has been constant, the sediments which are now on the ocean floor would have accumulated in only 30 million years. Therefore, the continents and oceans cannot be one billion years old.

The rate at which meteoritic dust is accumulating on the earth is such that after 5 billion years, the equivalent of 182 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, there should be an abundance of nickel in the crustal rocks of the earth. No such concentration has been found—on land or in the oceans.

If the moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated extensive layers of space dust—possibly a mile in thickness. Before instruments were placed on the moon, NASA was very concerned that our astronauts would sink into a sea of dust. This did not happen; there is very little space dust on the moon.

Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed a million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their evolution that began a thousand million years ago.

#23: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:36 am
—
I see those quotes plagiarized all over the internet. Each one would have you believe that the rate of X has been constant since the creation of our planet and the moon. Some of those quotes are 70 years old as well, published in creationist magazines or books. All of these claims have also been debunked not just by anti-creationist believers.

#24: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:10 am
—
You guys need to get with it, or you are gonna end up in a vase.

OK, here we go. An act of Creation? Or just a Biological Accident?

You Decide!

Link

#25: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Stwa,

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:56 am
—
An act of Creation? Or just a Biological Accident?

Link

#26: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Schmal_Turm,

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:20 pm
—
Yes Mooxe, these are all over the net; many sites giving credit to the author, so no plagiarism there. The problem I see though is that if a scientist says this is bunk, who do you think the general population is going to believe? Some flat-earth society member or this person over here who has a PhD, etc.

And yet we are fed constant trash as the people in authority many times don't have a clue and don't want to admit it, or maybe the answer is just too unbelievable. For example, I have seen too many times where the so-called authorities would have us believe that this herd of mammoths used to live as far as Siberia trudging around in snow that covers everything for up to 6 months or more. And yet an average elephant eats 330-375lbs of vegetation a day. Do they really think that a herd of these mammoths, numbering in the thousands, are able to find that much food a day in the frozen north? Yet that is the constant image that is broadcast to even our young through the animated features. Since the scientists can't come to grips with the idea that maybe something significant happened to change the atmosphere they come up with this asinine theory that the early man is the reason for the demise of the mammoth and mastodon. The Native Americans in hundreds of years were hunting the bison and the herds were still in the millions and yet the cavemen with little more than spears were able to bring the mammoths to extinction?

For those who can't believe in the Great Deluge for religious reasons there is an interesting book, Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. (the original title was When the Earth nearly Died), by a couple of British scientists: D.S. ALLAN, a Cambridge M.A., is a science historian specializing in paleogeography, particularly in the Arctic regions. A science teacher for many years, he is a skilled cartographer and has made a special study of evidence for climatic and landform change in recent geological times. He lives in Basildon, Essex, England. J.B. DELAIR, B.Sc., is an Oxford-based geologist with wide international and commercial field experience. An anthropologist, he has a special interest in animal and plant distribution and in tribal traditions. He is the Museum Curator of Geology at University of Southampton, England.

#27: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:03 pm
—
Hi there

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

Do they really think that a herd of these mammoths, numbering in the thousands, are able to find that much food a day in the frozen north? Yet that is the constant image that is broadcast to even our young through the animated features. .

Using a cartoon film as a reference of scientists feels a bit strange to me.
I know little about mammoth, but a quick look at wiki reviled the following:

Wiki wrote (View Post):

Wiki “Their social structure was probably the same as that of African and Asian elephants, with females living in herds headed by a matriarch, whilst bulls lived solitary lives or formed loose groups after sexual maturity.” […]The females spend their entire lives in tight-knit matrilineal family groups, some of which are made up of more than ten members .

About what the mamuth and elephants eats:

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

And yet an average elephant eats 330-375lbs of vegetation a day. .

Though according to wiki:

Wiki wrote (View Post):

Male African elephants are the largest surviving terrestrial animals and can reach a height of 4 m (13 ft) and weigh 7,000 kg (15,000 lb). [..]They can consume as much as 150 kg (330 lb) of food .

So, the "bigest African 7 ton boys" CAN eat up to 330 lb, it is thus the extreem...

While according to wiki the mammoth had a weight of:

Wiki wrote (View Post):

However, most species of mammoth were only about as large as a modern Asian elephant (which are about 2.5m to 3m high at the shoulder, and rarely exceeding 5.4 tonnes). .

Do you have some better examples than the "mammoths", please.

/S

#28: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:03 am
—
What I like about the Big Think series, is these guys don't get a lot of time, and they are actually giving it their best shot.

Hint: - Just a biological accident.

Link

#29: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 7:56 am
—
Usually, Bill Nye needs less time than the others to complete his responses. Nye explains evolution as the process of well designed life forms eating (and therefore eliminating) poorly designed life forms.

Hint: Just a biological accident that seems to believe that a well designed life form will not eat him.

Link

#30: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 8:18 am
—
One more thing

Schmal_Turm wrote (View Post):

And yet we are fed constant trash as the people in authority many times don't have a clue and don't want to admit it, or maybe the answer is just too unbelievable. For example, I have seen too many times where the so-called authorities would have us believe that this herd of mammoths used to live as far as Siberia trudging around in snow that covers everything for up to 6 months or more.

Well, where I live, its long cold winters. We have moose or as we say “elk”. The larger elk weight = 700 Kg.

This is a elk:

Map of where they live:

The elk survives the Winter, obviously..
Why, and how? During the warmer part of the year, the elk eat excessively, putting on much weight. The elk eats 2-3 times as much a day in the summer season compared to the Winter season. So the elk still fined food during the winter, the ground still has berry twigs and heather under the snow. They also eat of trees, twigs and barch also pine. During winter up to 100 different foods is found in the stomach of elks when examined.
The storage of energy from the summer season is a key to get through the winter.
Thus the elk lose 20-25% of its weight during the winters.

I believe all animals who stay the winter here has similar strategies, either put on weight during the summer abundance or go into a deep “sleep” over the winter.

Why would the mammoth be different?

#31: Re: Bill Nye vs Ken Ham Debate Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:27 pm
—
hi Smile

Young earth creationism believes in a literal translation of "day" ... and day meaning a 24 hour period.
Old earth creationism believes that the word "day" in Genesis refers to an epoch (period of time). Therefore a day could represent a time period of 24 hours or millions of years (for example).
Hugh Ross, of the "reasons to believe" website, explains old earth creationism from a more scientific viewpoint.

I personally believe the old earth explanation of creation. And as a person who treasures our human ability to reason and think critically, I doubt evolution accurately explains life as we know it ... mainly due to it's underpinning believe in random events.

Although we can't say for sure what belief system is true ... we can probably all agree that what we believe plays a pivotal and definite role in our interaction with each other and the universe.

An interesting point mentioned in the Bible is that God says He is able to declare the end from the beginning. If there is written record describing and predicting accurately events in the future ... then it would seem reasonable to research its validity.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1