Using the correct numbers in the calculation brings the total new species to about 7 per year, which is realistic.
Vertebrates, minus the fish, are estimated at 30,000 species. Noah didn't bring every kind of bug, bacteria, or fish for example, yet Bill Nye includes these in his calculation. He then compares that to all the species that might exist, though only a small percentage of the supposed species have been identified. He is talking about the few air-breathing land animals that were on the ark. Bill Nye is also using the logical fallacy of biased statistics. He only got those animals that had breath. Each kind only contained two animals that were one species-a very few would have fourteen animals) at the time of the flood, 4,000 years ago?" Moses didn’t get two of every insect, bacteria, and virus. The real question is, “How many species of air-breathing land animals now exist compared to an original 1,000 or so kinds (at that time, there were not species per se. There just isn’t enough time.īill Nye is using a red herring fallacy. The last 4,000 years? People would have seen these changes among us. Every day a new species of fish, a new species of organisms you can’t see, and so on. You wouldn’t just find a different bird, a new bird, you’d find a different kind of bird-a whole new species of bird.
we would expect to find 11 new species every day. This is the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence.īill Nye arguing against Creation science: "If there are 4,000 years since flood, today, the very, very lowest estimate is that there are about 8.7 million species, but a much more reasonable estimate is it’s 50 million or even 100 million when you start counting the viruses and bacteria, and all the beetles that must be extant in the tropical rain forests that we haven’t found, so we’ll take a number which I think is pretty reasonable, 16 million species today. These are deposits that were laid down during the flood, as are most of the sedimentary deposits around the world. Bill states that there is not enough time after the flood, a red herring, since the deposits were most likely from the flood. Missing from the argument is that most of the stone is just limestone, not dead zooxanthellae.Bill Nye uses the logical fallacy of misleading vividness, adding many pieces of unnecessary information, and this fallacy works to make people think that there is actually substance to what he claims because of the details given in spite of the fact that both the premises and conclusion are false.This is a fallacy because it distracts from the real issue, though it may be convincing, especially to someone who doesn’t want to know about God and His will. There is a theme throughout the debate of tending to use this ad hominem to jump-start a logical fallacy of appeal to emotion, making Ken Ham out to be someone bad or weird for believing what God says. When he modifies the debate question to “Does Ken Ham’s Creation Model hold up? Is it viable?” and when he speaks of “Ken Ham’s flood,” this is an awkward form of ad hominem fallacy. Bill Nye is using the ad hominem fallacy, a fallacy of irrelevancy by making this about Ken Ham rather than using sound logic with true premises, true conclusion, and sound reasoning.How could those animals have lived their entire life and formed these layers in just 4,000 years? There isn’t enough time for this limestone we’re standing on to have come into existence." Now, in these many, many layers in this vicinity of Kentucky there are coral animals, fossils, zooxanthellae, and when you look at it closely, you can see that they lived their entire lives, they lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that if the water conditions were correct, and so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. I stopped at the side of the road today and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Red Herring / Digression / Diversion / Evading the Issue / Side-trackingīill Nye arguing against Creation science: "Well, let’s take it back around to the question at hand: Does Ken Ham’s Creation Model hold up? Is it viable? We’re here in Kentucky on layer upon layer upon layer of limestone. The logical fallacy of red herring occurs when an attempt is made to divert the discussion away from the point by bringing up some topic that is not relevant. Logical Fallacy of Red Herring / Digression / Diversion / Evading the Issue / Side-tracking Logical Fallacy of Red Herring / Digression / Diversion / Evading the Issue / Side-tracking Foundations Home Meaning Bible Dictionary History Toons & Vids Quotations
0 kommentar(er)
