The Ham/Nye debate!

[KingsGambit]

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

[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.

[rogue06]

Notice:

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[nico]

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.

[Jedidiah]

No, I'm not. Then I wouldn't consider them creationists.

Answers In Genesis not creationist? What is a creationist

[seanD]

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.

[Jedidiah]

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.

[seanD]

Coupling TE and creationism is a convolution of the concepts. I doubt any of the TEs here would identify as a creationist.

[Cerebrum123]

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

[authentic8]

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.

... 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.

[Kbertsche]

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.