All the synaptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were probably not written by the Apostles directly. Mark was probably written 40 years after Jesus's death and resurrection (and he and Luke were not apostles). John was the latest and written probably 100 years after Jesus's death. The only original Apostle to actually write anything down was probably Peter and he only wrote down 2 Peter (1 Peter was probably done by a scribe).
Bill Nye to debate Creationist tonight at 7 - 2.4 on CNN
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
All the synaptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were probably not written by the Apostles directly. Mark was probably written 40 years after Jesus's death and resurrection (and he and Luke were not apostles). John was the latest and written probably 100 years after Jesus's death. The only original Apostle to actually write anything down was probably Peter and he only wrote down 2 Peter (1 Peter was probably done by a scribe).
Mark for example recounts Jesus death in the first person. So, it's written as if he witnessed it himself.
That's true but Mark probably started as an oral tradition (aka personal testimony) with the rest added later and then written down by someone else (few Jews could write back then).
I might have had Hugh Ross join with Nye as one is an old-Earther, and another a skeptic to take the "Hit him high and I hit him low approach."
The Kitz.Dover deal wasn't even intel design, but a YEC textbook, and NOVA proved the YECers deception.
I think it is harder for skeptics these days.
In the past it was all about Sunday school, go burn your D&D manuals.
Now I see more YEC'ers electric-universe cranks and cryptid hunters all rubbing off on each other. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, then a plesiosaur might have survived in Loch Ness, Bigfoot are "Nephilim," and so were the Greek Gods--so its ALL real...Nessie, UFOs (not aliens they're all demons of course
)
That's how you get on Coast-To-Coast. The Woo try not to contradict each other too much and accommodate each other's tales if they can--so its all very chummy.
But that isn't how science works. We reveal truth with conflict, peer review--not by accommodation. You don't teach the controversy, you teach what is.
It is just that "what is" can be very depressing. You won't meet passed loved ones, there will likely be no field effect starships, humans didn't ride dinos as on the Flintstones, bigfoot is a myth....bummer!
The universe is older and more majestic, yes, but it seems a less fun place to live.
And even I'm guilty. I keep going to Nextbigfuture hoping to see some breakthrough, something that will give humanity at least a taste of what we see on Saturday morning--even though I should know better.
This is why we need programs like Cosmos to give us new things to hold onto, just in case.
I think the one thing that makes people doubt evolution is the old memory of the warm pond model where something just kind of happens, when what you really see are impact theory, extremophiles and smokers, the alembics of the deep--nature as Hermes Trismegistus. Or to oil men, you might call smokers biological cracking stations of a sort. This more dynamic model is far better than the warm pond which is what Ken thinks Evolution can be reduced to. It's a lot richer than that. And that is cool too.
This is why we need men like Bill Nye, to bring the cool factor back to science.
The Kitz.Dover deal wasn't even intel design, but a YEC textbook, and NOVA proved the YECers deception.
I think it is harder for skeptics these days.
In the past it was all about Sunday school, go burn your D&D manuals.
Now I see more YEC'ers electric-universe cranks and cryptid hunters all rubbing off on each other. If the Earth was only 6,000 years old, then a plesiosaur might have survived in Loch Ness, Bigfoot are "Nephilim," and so were the Greek Gods--so its ALL real...Nessie, UFOs (not aliens they're all demons of course
That's how you get on Coast-To-Coast. The Woo try not to contradict each other too much and accommodate each other's tales if they can--so its all very chummy.
But that isn't how science works. We reveal truth with conflict, peer review--not by accommodation. You don't teach the controversy, you teach what is.
It is just that "what is" can be very depressing. You won't meet passed loved ones, there will likely be no field effect starships, humans didn't ride dinos as on the Flintstones, bigfoot is a myth....bummer!
The universe is older and more majestic, yes, but it seems a less fun place to live.
And even I'm guilty. I keep going to Nextbigfuture hoping to see some breakthrough, something that will give humanity at least a taste of what we see on Saturday morning--even though I should know better.
This is why we need programs like Cosmos to give us new things to hold onto, just in case.
I think the one thing that makes people doubt evolution is the old memory of the warm pond model where something just kind of happens, when what you really see are impact theory, extremophiles and smokers, the alembics of the deep--nature as Hermes Trismegistus. Or to oil men, you might call smokers biological cracking stations of a sort. This more dynamic model is far better than the warm pond which is what Ken thinks Evolution can be reduced to. It's a lot richer than that. And that is cool too.
This is why we need men like Bill Nye, to bring the cool factor back to science.
I'm an evolution skeptic as well, because I don't buy the idea that it's solely based on random mutation and natural selection, which was what I was taught back then in school. It think that (in addition to random mutation) an organism changes bits of its genetic makeup depending on the environment it lives in/adapts to. And over generations (if the offsprings are living under the same environmental conditions), these changes to the genetic code get more and more refined. That's the only way I can see things happen the way they did.
Only a few days ago I stumbled over this article that makes me think my hunch is correct. An organism that does sport like running recognizes what areas of the body need more support (like the heart, the lungs and the leg muscles). So everything is refined to change this. And the changes are also passed on to the offsprings. And if future generations run as well, these refinements get more and more prominent.
Adapt that principle to primates coming into a region with fruits hanging from tall trees, and over generations, back muscles got stronger and stronger, the shape of the spine changed, etc..., to refine the upright walk they needed. Furry animals relocate to a hot region, and over generations, they change their genetic makeup to produce less fur, or more sweat glands.
And organism absolutely knows what its doing and actively adapts to its environment. And the evolution theory I was taught completely ignored that.
Only a few days ago I stumbled over this article that makes me think my hunch is correct. An organism that does sport like running recognizes what areas of the body need more support (like the heart, the lungs and the leg muscles). So everything is refined to change this. And the changes are also passed on to the offsprings. And if future generations run as well, these refinements get more and more prominent.
Adapt that principle to primates coming into a region with fruits hanging from tall trees, and over generations, back muscles got stronger and stronger, the shape of the spine changed, etc..., to refine the upright walk they needed. Furry animals relocate to a hot region, and over generations, they change their genetic makeup to produce less fur, or more sweat glands.
And organism absolutely knows what its doing and actively adapts to its environment. And the evolution theory I was taught completely ignored that.
Your holding of this hypothesis of yours doesn't make you "an evolution skeptic".
Epigenetics accounts for at least some of the things you're talking about. Multiple "genes" may be present in an organism but only certain alleles are expressed due to environmental triggers.
Also, regarding human evolution, you're a little off as far as the chain of changes. Our ancestors were able to walk upright before they left the trees. Chimpanzees actually evolved back to knuckle-walking after our branches split. Neither had anything to do with reaching up to high-hanging fruit as far as I have read. We developed brachiation for that.
Body hair is pretty uneven when you compare the temperature of environments and how hirsute the population is, and lots of animals have plenty of fur in very warm climates (it is good protection from the sun). A lion's mane certainly isn't doing it any favors in the hot African savanna, but other pressures apparently discourage any males born without one from breeding successfully enough for the population as a whole to be effected. It may be sexual selection, it might be the added protection from other males wanting to tear out its throat, whatever it is, it works. This is the randomness in action combined with behavioral pressures rather than environmental ones. Some lion running around half a million years ago didn't just think up the idea that it would like to have a mane and want it so hard that it was impressed into its genetic code.
In any case, perhaps you should read up on Lamarckian Evolution which was one of the predecessors of Darwin's theory, and all the evidence that pushed us away from it.
Certainly my examples weren't what happened exactly, those were just general pictures to visualize the principle I was talking about. To turn it around, we lost our ability to climb trees properly (look at our feet), and I'm pretty sure it's because we didn't need it anymore, and not because a random mutation forced us to live on the ground.
And your mane example makes me wonder if you got my entire point. I was never talking about cognitive functions influencing the genetic make up (the “i want a mane so hard“ thing). That is very certainly not the way it works.
And your mane example makes me wonder if you got my entire point. I was never talking about cognitive functions influencing the genetic make up (the “i want a mane so hard“ thing). That is very certainly not the way it works.
Agreed.
It would be one thing if ignoring wacko creationists stopped them from getting attention, but that's clearly not the case. Scientists need to speak up if they want their point-of-view to be represented in the conversation.
--
Out of curiosity, does anyone who saw the debate think it is worth watching? I'm interested, but it's also nearly two and a half hours. That's a big chunk of one's day.
As we moved away from forested areas (and the forests became less dense and eventually disappeared) being able to run became a better trait for survival than the ability to climb trees. Those with feet that provided for better running ability survived and those with the clumsy tree-friendly feet did not.
You're basically suggesting that somewhere in our subconscious is a genetic encoder box that recognizes what is needed and codes new genes for that purpose. I get it. I get it, I reject it and I mock it.
A
Amaris
Guest
You will roll your eyes, a lot, every time Ken Ham speaks. He's so full of shit it practically pours out of his ears.
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, when you want to pass off bullshit as truth, you want it to be as pretty as possible, to make it go down easier.
Actually, while decay is constant, the amount of atmospheric radiation has fluctuated. Because of this, some radiocarbon dates can be off if we just used decay rates. If I were a creationist, I'd probably bring this up to argue that God changes the rules.
Of course, it could still be easily refuted because science isn't a one-trick pony. Everything in radiocarbon has been calibrated first by tree rings and then glacier layers. It's really quite consistent and makes Young Earth theories highly implausible.
Since he is arguing against evolution he might as well be arguing for a flat earth or a geocentric universe. I have a hard time seeing how could anybody not just walk over him and his so called arguments.
Because they design their arguments specifically to sound good in such a limited debate setting, especially if their opponent is there to actually debate honestly. All they need is one line that makes you go "uh, um, well I'm not up to date on the specifics of that, but I would think that. . ." and suddenly science doesn't have all the answers. The person debating the merits of science represents "science" as a whole in the opposition's mind, not only their limited knowledge of it. So they design their arguments to be a series of "gotchas." which can lead even the best of debaters to attack the question instead of their nonsensical arguments, which they take as science not being able to stand against the mighty weight of the bible. And the audience cheers for the mighty savior, hallelujah.
Exactly. See above. I suspect that Ham is in the position he is just because of his accent, which to Kentuckians would sound refined and posh and Oxford educated, even though he could drive a tow truck for a living. Accents are weird that way.
A
Amaris
Guest
In short, Creationism is about sounding scientific, without having to do all that... science... stuff. You just pick up a Bible, say "God did it" and *boom*, instant expert.
Any background in basic science will make the content of what he says absurd, no matter what his accent is.