The Ham/Nye debate!

[seanD]

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.

[Jedidiah]

I take it you are not familiar with AIG and their position on the matter. They accept massive evolution in the post diluvian era

[seanD]

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.

[Jedidiah]

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.

[rogue06]

Notice:

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

[nico]

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.

[KingsGambit]

The one thing Congress members tend to be experts at is obfuscation.

[seanD]

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?

[Jedidiah]

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.

[Juvenal]

A supposition means to assume; a "pre" supposition means to assume beforehand.

I'm supposing there's not a lot of supposing after the fact.

Cause, ya know, that'd be called delusioning, or something like that, I suppose.

[damanar]

It 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.

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.

[One Bad Pig]

A presup is what you get before marriage, right?

Only in the minds of horny doofii.

[Manwë Súlimo]

A presup is what you get before marriage, right?

[KingsGambit]

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.

[nico]

YECs 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.

A supposition means to assume; a "pre" supposition means to assume beforehand. An online dictionary can readily supply you with the difference. As for the inductive vs. deductive part, that's the contention isn't it? Ham says the induction part isn't actually happening because hidden in the method are presuppositions which Nye sharply denies. I imagine you would do the same.