Announcement

Collapse

Applied Protology 201 Guidelines

This forum is for Christian creationists (YEC and OEC) only, and we ask that conversations be kept civil and with brotherly charity.

Deistic notions or even theistic evolutionary* notions are excluded from this forum.

This area is not to be used to bash organizations that promote a Cosmological view different from your own (ie AiG or RTB).


The purpose of this area is to provide a safe haven for fellow creationists to discuss their differences away from the hostility that normally accompanies such discussion. While disagreements are inevitable, the purpose of this forum is for fellow believers to discuss their differences in a civil manner. If you are unable to discuss differences in Cosmogony in a civil manner, then this forum is NOT for you!!!!!

There have been some issues as to who is allowed to post in this area and who is not. TheologyWeb had very specific goals and ideas in mind when setting up this area, and this is an attempt to clarify. This forum is for creationists only. This is not simply naturalism plus a belief in God or gods. So in other words, the question that a poster must ask himself is this: In what significant ways do my views on the origin of life and the universe differ from a non-theistic materialistic view practically speaking? If there are no significant differences, then this forum is not for you. The purpose is for persons who believe in a very active and significant “creation” process. All theists will by definition have some metaphysical elements, that is not the deciding factor here. Also simply a belief in the supernatural special creation of man or the infusion of a specially created soul is not the deciding factor. Of course those things are important, but that is not the sum and substance of the types of discussions here in which this would be a significant difference in the debate discussions.


Fairly speaking, we at TheologyWeb ask the posters not to look for “loopholes” or ways that their views could “fit.” If a poster frankly would not be considered a “creationist” in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith. This is not done as a judgment or criticism against any theist whose views do not fall within the purview of this forum, it is simply to insure that the goals and intent of the spirit of the intentions of TheologyWeb are carried out. This is not said in maliciousness at all, and we totally ask for the respect of our members to the spirit in which this forum was created, for creationists (and ID advocates) as generally understood. There may certainly be Christians who do not qualify for this forum and that is not meant as a slur or insinuation against them. Salvation is not dependent upon our creation beliefs which are a secondary, in-house issue, though of course important.

Do not be offended or combative if a Moderator contacts you with a request for clarification of your beliefs and that sometimes the judgment calls of what is within the guidelines here can be gray. Please grant us the benefit of the doubt.

Due to the rash of recent "hostile" threads, the Cosmogony forum guidelines have been updated in an effort to 1) Clarify the purpose of this forum and 2) to prevent a repeat of the recent unpleasantries.


The purpose of the Cosmogony area has always been to provide a “safe haven” for civil discourse between fellow believers who happen to have opposing views on creation. It was our intent that the common ground of belief in deity and belief in some type of special creation would be enough to keep the discussion civil.

However, just the opposite has occurred. The Cosmogony area is one of the most contentious areas of TWeb. In order to return this area to “safe haven” it was designed to be, the area will be placed under greater moderator scrutiny until you guys lean to behave.

This means that personal attacks on posters, attacks on the Christianity of supporters of views that you do not hold, attacks on Christian organizations that support views that you do not hold, and hostile behavior in general will be subject to moderator intervention. However, what constitutes an “attack” is still up to the discretion of the moderators.

Posters who are habitually edited for hostile/aggressive post will have their access to this forum removed.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact the moderator(s) of this area.



Like everywhere else at Tweb, the regular rules apply:


Forum Rules: Here

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

*Theistic evolution is a position somewhere between evolution and creationism. It says that God created the substance of our universe and the guided it into what we have today via the evolutionary process.
See more
See less

The Ham/Nye debate!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The one thing Congress members tend to be experts at is obfuscation.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by damanar View Post
      Nye does not think that "creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way." His point is that you cannot use creationism to contribute to science. All of the YEC scientists Ham brought on used science to discover what they did, and not creationism. You cannot use the Bible and figure out how x-rays work. Creationism provides no predictable results, if a deity can change things at its whim instead of natural laws that we can follow to consistent results.
      Meh, I guess you don't get it either. The quote you took from me is hyperbole. You knew that didn't you?I Anyway, 'll break it down. Creationism means that God creating everything fully formed. In other words, creationists approach everything as if reverse engineering the universe. They do what all scientists do but with integrity. Instead of pretending that things have design in order to understand them, they actually believe they have design. No creationist believe that the Bible teaches about x-rays. Creationism is a starting point, not a manual. It is (you know it's coming), a PRESUPPOSITION applied when doing science. Guys like Nye have them to, but they don't admit to it or they call them something else.

      Comment


      • #33
        Notice:

        Okay folks let's remember that participation in this forum is restricted to creationists (OEC, YEC and any variations thereof) ONLY

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #34
          One poster who is not allowed to take part here had a good point. YE creationists in general are inconsistent with thinking about evolution. They seem to think that in less than 6,000 years enough evolution has occurred to populate the world with the variety we see today from the animals carried on the Ark. That does not seem to square with the relative stability in species we see today.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #35
            The whole point of creationism is that global species population occurred via a miracle -- both creation and distribution. A natural process is not necessary in that scenario.
            "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

            Comment


            • #36
              I take it you are not familiar with AIG and their position on the matter. They accept massive evolution in the post diluvian era
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                I take it you are not familiar with AIG and their position on the matter. They accept massive evolution in the post diluvian era
                No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.
                "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                  One poster who is not allowed to take part here had a good point. YE creationists in general are inconsistent with thinking about evolution. They seem to think that in less than 6,000 years enough evolution has occurred to populate the world with the variety we see today from the animals carried on the Ark. That does not seem to square with the relative stability in species we see today.
                  What the ark took exactly is a matter of speculation. And did God create one archetype cat or did he make lions and tigers separately? It's all speculation. However seemingly implausible the theories might be shouldn't deter from holding to YEC. OEC has its problems too, not to mention evolutionists who recognize the "Cambrian" problem and start theorizing about saltationism and punctuated equilibrium. It can get pretty outlandish.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.
                    Answers In Genesis not creationist? What is a creationist
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      That's a good question. But trying to work the theory of evolution into a YEC and creationist belief just doesn't seem to fit.
                      "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seanD View Post
                        That's a good question. But trying to work the theory of evolution into a YEC and creationist belief just doesn't seem to fit.
                        Well it seems to work in TE, but I have to agree that I see it as incompatible with YEC. That does not seem to stop AIG.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Coupling TE and creationism is a convolution of the concepts. I doubt any of the TEs here would identify as a creationist.
                          "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seanD View Post
                            No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.
                            He's speaking of the kind of rapid speciation that would be needed to get the amount of species we have today. They would not call this evolution however. They differentiate between "change of frequency of alleles within populations" and the GTE. Definition here. http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by damanar View Post
                              All of the YEC scientists Ham brought on used science to discover what they did, and not creationism. You cannot use the Bible and figure out how x-rays work. Creationism provides no predictable results ...
                              You're putting creationism/ists in one camp and all of science in another camp; it just doesn't work like that.

                              Creationism addresses the origins issue, not electromagnetic radiation. A working scientist who is a creationist would use the theories from his/her field just as the non-creationist would. If they are not working in a field that includes the origin of life they would have little reason to bring up creationism in their work.

                              Originally posted by damanar View Post
                              ... if a deity can change things at its whim instead of natural laws that we can follow to consistent results.
                              Just because He can, it doesn't mean He does all the time. By most definitions, "miracles" are rare and, I would argue, theologically must be so.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                                Coupling TE and creationism is a convolution of the concepts. I doubt any of the TEs here would identify as a creationist.
                                I suspect that Rogue and Jim (Oxmixmudd) would identify as "evolutionary creationists" just as Denis Lamoureux does and many Evangelical Christian TEs do. These guys really do believe in divine creation, and think that God used evolution as one of His mechanisms.
                                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X