Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: The Ham/Nye debate!

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    104
    Amen (Given)
    12
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote 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". 1 Corinthians 15:14 makes clear that even the resurrection is, in theory, falsifiable (I don't think it really can be falsified, obviously, since it really happened, but you get my point). Since Paul will even admit that, what does it say that Ham puts a non-essential belief up as non-falsifiable? This answer is rightly being mocked as foolish, and is not a good representation of Christianity as intellectually viable.
    Ham says "nothing" because he already admitted his presuppositions that inform his worldview. Nye says "evidence" because he believes he has no presuppositions at all. Of course, the evidence he has in mind must readily conform to his worldview, but as a committed modernist who believes himself perfectly objective he has no worldview, only "reason", so anything that doesn't conform to the presuppositions he won't admit to is not considered real evidence. This biggest problem with guys like Nye is their inability to grasp their own philosophical underpinnings.

  2. #22
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Missourah, USA
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,274
    Amen (Given)
    3116
    Amen (Received)
    373
    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.

  3. #23
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    104
    Amen (Given)
    12
    Amen (Received)
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by klaus54 View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Professor KingsGambit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Next to you
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,083
    Amen (Given)
    1342
    Amen (Received)
    3508
    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.
    I want something good to die for to make it beautiful to live.

  5. #25
    tWebber Manwë Súlimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Upon Mount Taniquetil
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    916
    Amen (Given)
    65
    Amen (Received)
    305
    A presup is what you get before marriage, right?

  6. #26
    Must...have...caffeine One Bad Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Inside the beltway
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,877
    Amen (Given)
    4822
    Amen (Received)
    8758
    Quote Originally Posted by Manwë Súlimo View Post
    A presup is what you get before marriage, right?
    Only in the minds of horny doofii.
    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio

    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

  7. #27
    Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Athens, Ga
    Posts
    11
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nico View Post
    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.

  8. #28
    radical strawberry
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Everglades
    Faith
    Taoist
    Posts
    2,514
    Amen (Given)
    358
    Amen (Received)
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by nico View Post
    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.
    There is no lao tzu

  9. #29
    Theologyweb's Official Grandfather Jedidiah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Peter's Creek, Alaska
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,151
    Amen (Given)
    17854
    Amen (Received)
    5873
    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.

  10. Amen Duragizer amen'd this post.
  11. #30
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,749
    Amen (Given)
    195
    Amen (Received)
    713
    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •