Moose wants a more specific topic than the one that just closed on YEC methods of argument. But since the very fact that there IS a different YEC methodology was never really acknowledged except by Ben, and otherwise was just denigrated as irrational as usual, nor was anything I had to say about what it is acknowledged but merely argued with from the same old science assumptions, I don't see any other direction to go.
Below is the last post I couldn't post because the thread was closed, by Berberry. It is merely more of the same but at least it may serve to demonstrate what that "same" consists in.
For some reason it is just about impossible to get anyone to stand back and recognize that we are talking about two completely opposed premises or presuppositions and that that is what slants the debate here. The evos continued to argue with my statements about this overview I attempted, and with the YEC presupposition, FROM THEIR OWN presupposition (basically
Science Rules as opposed to
God Rules), instead of being able to recognize their presupposition itself, their use of it, stand back from it and just SEE the fundamental clash of worldviews for what they are. This is no doubt due to their abiding contempt for the YEC point of view. Kinda puts a crimp in objectivity dontcha know.
This kind of objective distance is difficult to achieve of course, for all on both sides of the divide, but that was the aim of that thread and any continuation of it will have the same aim and probably the same problems, and I don't see how to focus it any more clearly myself.
Anyway, here is my last post on the subject there, which is saying the same thing again in answer TO the same-thing-again from the other side:
Evidence, Faith, evidence!
Nope. To demand evidence is simply to demand that I submit to the very presupposition I'm saying is a contradiction with my own presupposition, typical at EvC but exactly what I'm challenging. the validation of a revelation from God does not depend upon evidence but upon having the "ears to hear" and believe what is written. You are again merely asserting your presupposition against mine. You demand evidence as part of the science presupposition that runs EvC. Nope, God's revelation needs no evidence.
Evidence only enters in on matters God has not revealed, and that includes among other things all the WAYS the Flood may have occurred and left signs of its occurrence. THAT is where actual science begins for a YEC.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 02:18 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 02:21 PM
™ Version 4.2