Faith's Participation in EvC

To be a little more accurate, Nosy said he would start a thread explaining what he understood Percy's reasoning to be, and wondered if it should be made public. I thought if he was going to lay out one side of the discussion on the public board, then the whole discussion ought to be made public. Some parts were left out but the gist of it has been posted.I am looking forward to Nosy's explanation myself.

And especially in the science forums. That seems to me a reasonable accommodation to the frustrations expressed. How this will work out in particulars I'm not sure, but I think this is a better solution than suspending me either totally or in part.

That was already the case in the private forum, discussing me as if I were an insect specimen pinned to a display, and it's been the case on other occasions at EvC. So I have no problem with making it completely public where everyone can have an opinion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't asked anyone to believe that my Biblical premises are science, merely to understand the logic that if the Bible is given by God then those premises are facts and valid as a basis for scientific discussion. You don't have to believe any of this, merely understand that it is valid logic and Biblical creationists believe it.

You are simply insisting on your own theology here. Biblical creationists don't read the Bible as you do. You can't merely pronounce their reading false on the basis of yours, and those who agree with you right. That's begging the question.

Thanks, arach, you make a lot of good points on my behalf. I appreciate it.Others too. Not sure I'll get to them all. My computer is still crashing regularly.

I think Percy's aim for this site is to have a high-level scientific discussion. I'm guessing, but I don't know what else it is he has in mind. He can't simply enjoy seeing evos push scientifically unsophisticated creos around.Theoretically such a high-level debate shouldn't be impossible, but for that to happen high-level creationist scientists would have to be recruited, and really, those who aren't qualified should not be allowed to post at all in the science forums-- evos as well. It would mean that most of the evos here are not qualified to post either. There should be some well-defined standards of knowledge applied.These creationist scientists should be YECs, or IDers like Buzsaw or Randman. This would mean finding YECs and IDers who ARE scientists, who have the training and the experience, and talk the language on a par with the evo scientists. What is happening now is that few of the creationists who come here have a scientific background, at least on the necessary level.How many of these are there out there?How would they be enticed to post at EvC?Seems to me the whole profile of EvC would have to change to make that possible. There's a lot of low-level stuff here, and it's not all on the creationist side by a long shot.Percy thinks if he gets rid of me whatever it is he wants to happen will happen more. I'm going to keep a very low profile for a while and see if that's so. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Certainly not. You know who God would have to be if you believed in Him; you know who He is to us. You know your FSM is believed in by no one. The comparison is ludicrous and makes a mockery of the conversation.My statement stands. If GOD states something, it is FACT. It is not human thoughts in a mere book, it is not the opinion of a made-up god, it is fact.{EDIT: It's a matter of logic: IF the premise is true, IF God -- God as defined in the Bible, the God who knows all things, who doesn't lie -- states something, THEN the conclusion is true, it is fact. In this case you can't prove or disprove the premise, and if you don't believe in it, that doesn't affect the fact that it is logically correct and WE believe it as the truth. You may keep us in the non-science forums, of course, that's fair on a site like this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I also appreciate your observation about the caliber of theology debate here. THAT will never be recognized, however.And I really do think a test should be given to qualify people to debate science here. A vocabulary test for starters, a knowledge of all the definitions in the various fields, all the basics. That would eliminate most of the evos here too.I'd LOVE to see creationists on that level argue science. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It may be so that what Percy has in mind simply can't happen for any number of reasons, but I wish him well if he wants to try to bring it about.

You will not find a YEC, for sure --- maybe an IDer too, I don't know a lot about ID -- who will treat the Biblical record of the Flood as anything other than a fact. Of course, it doesn't need to be mentioned, let alone discussed: it is quite possible to argue the geological facts only, and avoid ever bringing up the Bible, but it IS the creationist's unalterable premise no matter how much science he or she knows. I merely get put in a position to have to state it now and then.

What do you think the EvC debate could possibly be about then, if the conclusion is already in place before anybody bothers to argue it?When you say things like this it's very clear that nobody has debate in mind at all, merely demonstrating how right they are enough so that the "ignorant" finally have to submit. When they see the light and embrace evolution they will be lauded; otherwise they will continue to be classed with the dummies and finally suspended.And speaking of abuse, calling someone dishonest who disagrees with you is a form of abuse that you indulge in a great deal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, that's a fair view of the situation. We don't need scientists, just people who have well digested the science involved in the issues under debate. Well, we all try to do that, but the degree of knowledge required is beyond most of us. You do need people with more of a science background than you tend to get on the creo side.

That is not a fair statement. I don't bring that up unless the argument goes in that direction.As for not refuting me, I think I've made many great points in debates here that have NEVER EVER EVER been acknowledged by anyone one the evo side, great points about the untenability of the geo column {edit: meant geo time table} explanation for the stratifications, great points about the overall trend to genetic depletion, great points about the lack of evidence for mutation as the source of genetic variability. If points made by each side were all tallied up fairly in columns, my arguments would come up quite respectably.{Edit: Oh and the constant refrain that creos never have answered the ORDER of the fossil record, which was recently repeated somewhere, by jar I believe, is simply false. It's been answered in two ways: one has to do with the fact that the bottom layers of the geo column are marine life, and land life appears later. The other answer is related to an experiment done by a Frenchman that came up not long ago. I forget where that discussion went, but he showed that the sediments and other contents carried in layers or currents of water do not precipitate out in the order that common sense would expect. I forget that example now, would have to look it up. These arguments are good arguments, and evo arguments haven't defeated them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, thanks.Since our, or at least my, standing here is being questioned, and the implication is that I've never made a scientific argument here, let alone a good one, it's not really off topic but yes, we shouldn't argue it further.Good to see you here, Randman.