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

  • #46
    I think Ken Ham may have used the debate to separate operational science i.e. working science, from historical science i.e. speculative science. Any takers?

    I will try to watch this debate, but I may get bored by it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
      I think Ken Ham may have used the debate to separate operational science i.e. working science, from historical science i.e. speculative science. Any takers?

      I will try to watch this debate, but I may get bored by it.
      Most YEC speakers try to distinguish "operational science" from "historical science". They claim that the methodology is different, and they want to accept the first and reject the second.

      They problem is that they are wrong. The methodology is essentially the same for both.
      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        Most YEC speakers try to distinguish "operational science" from "historical science". They claim that the methodology is different, and they want to accept the first and reject the second.

        They problem is that they are wrong. The methodology is essentially the same for both.
        Or perhaps, you weren't listening even though it was boring. Ken Ham seems to define historical science as opinion or interpretational science. Operational science and its interpretation are two different things; but I suppose I coin this stuff first.

        When something is first discovered, its interpretation isn't usually perfect, and it then undergoes remodeling. But such is the nature of science, and I didn't not give Ken Ham this idea.

        I am just frustrated by how simplistic that debate was. You seem to feel the same way about it.
        Last edited by Omniskeptical; 02-24-2014, 01:38 AM.

        Comment


        • #49
          L
          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
          Or perhaps, you weren't listening even though it was boring. Ken Ham seems to define historical science as opinion or interpretational science. Operational science and its interpretation are two different things; but I suppose I coin this stuff first.

          When something is first discovered, its interpretation isn't usually perfect, and it then undergoes remodeling. But such is the nature of science, and I didn't not give Ken Ham this idea.

          I am just frustrated by how simplistic that debate was. You seem to feel the same way about it.
          I didn't actually see the debate. I'm convinced that both sides are fundamentally wrong, so I wasn't that interested in watching it. All I know about the debate comes from the comments of those who watched it.

          I agree that INTERPRETATION of scientific data is an important issue, but this enters "observational science" as well. Some areas of science have fairly direct, non-controversial interpretations, while other areas have very indirect, convoluted interpretations. In fact, some areas of "observational" science (e.g. particle physics) are much more indirect and "iffy" than some areas of "historical" science. Thus I believe the distinction between "observational" and "historical" is wrong. A better distinction would be something that distinguishes "direct" from "indirect" in the interpretations.
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            The most lasting image in the public's view so far seems to be the respective answers to the "What would make you change your mind?" question, with Nye answering "evidence" and Ham answering "nothing".
            Several people here (and atheists commenting elsewhere after the debate) have really gone to town on Ham's answer - but virtually nobody (bar perhaps Nico) has held up a critical eyeglass to Nye's. So here goes.

            I'll credit Nye with being honest and sincere in stating that (he believes that) "evidence" would change his mind about it. In which case, the best that can be said is that he innocently told an untruth. He does not let "evidence" change his mind on evolution or the age of the earth etc.

            A simple example: dinosaurs. The only direct evidence anyone has regarding (an upper limit to) their age comes from the contents of their bones, viz. (a) soft tissue including unstable large molecules, and (b) carbon 14. Both of these considerations definitely imply that the bones are less than a million years old, the second implies that they are well under 100,000 years old. I said "direct" evidence, because even Richard Dawkins has implicitly admitted that none exists for their being tens of millions of years old - saying that one has to radiodate rocks below and above those where dinosaurs are buried.

            So why does Nye continue to believe that dinosaurs are over 65 million years old? Why, he can even continue to believe the earth is billions of years old, if he really wants to - just recalibrate elsewhere to allow for the only direct dinosaur dating evidence we currently possess.

            The fact that he doesn't do this, shows that his reply simply isn't true. If I'd been in Ham's position I'd have pounced all over Nye as soon as the word "evidence" was out of his mouth.

            Meanwhile, I accept to some degree the criticism made of Ham's reply - which was a microcosm of the criticism by some creationists e.g. at CMI that Ham had emphasised presuppositionalism so much that he left little space for evidence-related considerations. But that's something for the rest of the threads in this forum, lol

            Comment


            • #51
              Who necroed???
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Vertetuesi View Post

                A simple example: dinosaurs. The only direct evidence anyone has regarding (an upper limit to) their age comes from the contents of their bones, viz. (a) soft tissue including unstable large molecules,
                Reference from the scientific literature, please?

                I am aware that YECs make lots of similar claims, but these claims are not true. What has been reported by Mary Schweitzer and others is fossilized internal structures of bone. The original structure is preserved, but NOT the original tissue.

                and (b) carbon 14.
                Again, a reference from the scientific literature, please?

                Yes, YEC groups claim to have detected C-14 in dinosaur bone. But generally the samples were submitted deceptively, were not prepared properly, and the measurement backgrounds were underestimated. The radiocarbon that they detect is nothing more than sample contamination and measurement background.
                Last edited by Kbertsche; 02-07-2016, 02:47 PM.
                "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