Originally posted by Jedidiah
View Post
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. 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.
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. 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
-
I take it you are not familiar with AIG and their position on the matter. They accept massive evolution in the post diluvian era
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Notice:
Okay folks let's remember that participation in this forum is restricted to creationists (OEC, YEC and any variations thereof) ONLY
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by damanar View PostNye 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.
Leave a comment:
-
The one thing Congress members tend to be experts at is obfuscation.
Leave a comment:
-
The MSM (I think it was cnn) just recently had Nye debate a congresswoman about AGW. I'm thinking, out of all the skeptics he could have debated with an authority on the subject and they pick a congresswoman?
Leave a comment:
-
It is hard for me to respect Nye for taking on Ham. He should know that Ham has no interest and no real understanding of what science is all about.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by nico View PostIt all started when Bill Nye made some very uninformed remarks about parents teaching their children creationism. You can watch it on youtube. Ken Ham responded likewise in video format. You can watch that one on youtube as well. Anyway, the conflict between them snowballed, made a few headlines, and culminated in this debate. The topic of the debate was about whether or not creationism is a "viable" scientific theory. Essentially, Nye thinks that creationism means that you're incapable of contributing to society in any meaningful way. He says that you won't be able to create vaccines, invent machines, or understand technology at all. Honestly, he is very, very uninformed about creationism and has a very distorted view of what entails from a Biblical worldview.
Leave a comment:
-
A presup is what you get before marriage, right?
Leave a comment:
-
Presupposition is not an exclusively YEC term, though its use in Christian circles is always probably going to be a little associated with them or with proponents of presuppositional apologetics. But I do find the concept behind the word to be rather useful. I've seen the term "horizon" used as well to denote a similar concept.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostYECs are fond of the term "presupposition". Is there a difference between a presupposition and a supposition? Just curious.
And speaking of Ham, his supposition is that his Genesis 1 interpretation is correct, infallible if you will. Thus, no amount of physical evidence will sway him. Ergo, "debate" with Ham is a futile endeavor and a fool's errand. Ham can toss a few sciencey morsels to the ignorant thrall to give the impression he's "winning" and then he and followers can walk away smugly with the "victory". A victory that was fixed from the get-go.
Addendum: Ham's type of supposition is antithetical to modern natural science with its inductive method. Ham's is in fact deductive with his supposition being his axiom.
Leave a comment:
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: