More Nonsense from Ken Ham

Dr. Schweitzer is going great work.

My wife and I have supported her work for several years.

1 Like

Nephilim mutations. White crows - not demon seed - that were quickly eliminated.

Neat! Do you have a relevant website you can share? Thanks.

1 Like

That’s just nice false humility. There is no (rational - redundant I know) possibility that we are wrong. There’s a meaningless probability, let me count the sigmas. What is the possibility that relativity, QM, the multiverse, the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, Covid-19 are wrong? What is the probability?

That’s how science is supposed to work. It’s always open to correction, however remote the possibility is.

3 Likes

I agree in part with some theories and laws it’s most likely false humility but the other end is true to. It’s only our best interpretation that it’s true. However, then probability that we are wrong with things like the overall picture of evolution is so low it would be considered statistically insignificant.

It’s like if I head dive off a 500 foot high spot towards concrete. Is there probably some kind of chance I may survive, maybe. But whatever it is it’s so low that I consider it a fact I’ll splatter and die. The same goes for evolution. I have zero reason to believe it’s wrong. Maybe some aspect of it may change but the over all theory will remain intact.

1 Like

Yeah. How much of Newton was corrected by Einstein?

If my history is correct, many scientists in there day refused to accept that Einstein was correct… mainly because they were so gosh darned sure they were right.

History has shown time and again that there is a fine line between confidence and arrogance.

1 Like

Plate Tectonic Theory and Big Bang Theory are other examples of new theories that overturned existing scientific thought. They gained acceptance (not always quickly) from the scientific community by presenting evidence. (Positive evidence. Poo-pooing evolution doesn’t count as evidence.) A long time ago, back when Karl Giberson was in charge here, there was a really good essay about how all science is supposed to be open to correction. (Can’t remember if he was the one who wrote it.)

1 Like

None really. Newton’s equations were still correct under certain assumptions (objects not moving too fast, gravity not too strong to name two). Many calculations are still done using Newton’s equations of gravity instead of Einstein’s which are more complicated and aren’t necessary in most scenarios. Probably the biggest change was just where Newton’s equations actually come from, which can be understood as a result of the curvature of the time dimension. Before this time, nobody really knew where Newton’s law of universal gravitation came from or how gravity worked at all.

2 Likes

Science is hard work. Hard to come by. It shouldn’t change without a superior dialectical antithesis to the existing thesis for there to be a new synthesis. It’s got nothing to do with arrogance. It’s to do with… truth. Never putting desire before truth.

1 Like

See above. Nothing is going to even refine QM, let alone overturn it.

I can’t quite believe I am saying this, mate, but I think you are looking back with the rosey specs. This was not the righteous pursuit of evidence and truth. It was, IIRC, the refusal to except that Einstein was correct in the face of evidence and truth.

Sometimes requiring a superior dialectical antithesis to the existing thesis for there to be a new synthesis is simply a fig leaf we use to cover our pride and arrogance. Not always, but sometimes.

Now here is a statement that is clearly in the realm of faith, rather than science.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Pure science. And before that, pure reason. Mathematical reason. The HUP is NEVER going to change, be modified, be corrected in any way. Any more than Pythagoras is.

I thought the arrogance was mine? Oh aye, human nature in full throttle, as with Goedel and Cantor, who was persecuted to [breakdown and] death.

Sorry, but what you’re saying isn’t science.

Science does not operate by pure reason or pure mathematics.

6 Likes

How do you think the animals got into the ark? Did Noah have to round them all up?

Why do you think this is exactly what you would find in a millions of years. I want to see your empirical evidence!

Yes, she holds an old earth view and when she sees evidence to counter it she automatically dismisses it and assumes their is a reason that it is old. I don’t doubt there were natural processes that preserved it for thousands of years but not millions! You show the same error as before where your assumptions are driving your conclusions.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.