The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum

But you are rejecting the applicability of science. Instead of looking for the best scientific explanation you argue that we should go with explanations that fit in with your religious beliefs instead, calling it "stupid" to do otherwise. Thus you have rejected the applicability of science in favour of a theological position.So having adopted a theological and anti-scientific position you ought to have theological arguemnts to support it. If you don't then you are admitting that your position is not only scientifically indefensible but theologically indefensible too.
’

I disagree with your entire assessment of the situation.

Well I guess I'm just going to have to prove it to you.From this recent thread. http://EvC Forum: Does The Flood Add up? -->EvC Forum: Does The Flood Add up?message 286 [quote] Yeah I know the history whereby supposed Christians abandoned their faith for fallible science. Sad history. Some stupid stuff they actually accepted, a seeming arrangement of fossils supposedly proving descent. Now that is truly idiotic. In any case my assumptions are based on God's revelations and nothing so flimsy as a scientific
theory.
[/qupote]So it is "sad" and "stupid" to follow the scientific evidence over faith commitments. And your position is based on "God's revelations", not science.What's worse is that you misrepresent the history even though you tried to give the impression that you knew better (in message 294 lower down the page).You also assert in message 297

quote:

---

...I believe YECs respect God's revelation and all others compromise it

---

And you clearly believe it strongly enough to argue as if that belief were a solid fact - one it is "stupid" to reject, one that would be accepted by anyone who cares about the truth, not simply an opinion.Message 294

quote:

---

Anybody who really cares about the truth doesn't discard God's own revelation as lightly as it appears many have, just on the basis of fallible human science.

---

Which accoding to you means that nobody who cares about the truth. should prefer scenince over YEC interpetations of the Bible.Thus you clearly state that your position is based on a commitment to YEC theology, and that you reject science because it does not accept YEC theology as relevant.So there's plenty of theology to discuss. If you can establish that anyone who cares about the truth would accept YEC interpretations of the Bible as "God's revelation" it would be a good start. 

Not to spread you too thin, but here's another perspective: If I understand you properly, you're saying that you have to answer "scientific challenges" to your belief system with ... "scientific answers"--but that your answers will also necessarily include your beliefs.If so, then I agree. But there's no such thing as "scientific answers" that include beliefs. Science is a-belief. Once things are included in your answer which were not dictated by the scientifically collected evidence and scientific method of drawing and testing conclusions, you're simply not doing science. It doesn't mean you're wrong, just means you can't call it science.This is supposed to be the place where you can try to be logical, make an argument, but go beyond the very strict restrictions of what we call "science". And as I've argued above, and again and again in other threads, I think it's necessary for creationists....To "concede the science" is to state you're not going to fight science with pure science. And I think what you said above is exactly that--you have no interest or reason to fight science with science. In fact, it's impossible, nonsensical.You'll need logic, evidence, and piecewise theory building. But it won't be science. And I think that's OK.Ben

OK, I think that's close enough. At least on this thread I hope I have this freedom.I was mostly saying that in this forum I don't know what some mean by saying it's for arguing theologically -- that is, if it implies NOT addressing the scientific factors involved, that I can't see the point of at all. It's all part of the same picture. I'm not that analytical about how I argue. I basically just don't want to be jumped on for whatever I say that seems to me necessary to say in context and if that is possible here, great, and if after a few threads it looks to you like what I'm doing is like what you just said, terrific.

To CK and Jar, I am completley new here and if I understand your question. You are looking for some objectivty and evaluation of evidence. I recently left the Forum on the PBS website, because they closed and locked it. I was in discussion with Pandasthumb and others., you might be familiar with his website, or whoever it is. If its objectivity and debate Im your man. We were in a discussion of ID as Science and what it involves. I am A creationist/IDer of course. So if you in agreement with this, lets get started. Actually Proof, fact and evidence, is exacly what I am looking for here.. As I said I am new, so if this this is not the thread I need to be on let me know.D Bertot

Hello, welcome to EvC DB (ok if I call you that ?)We are always glad to have a new person who wants to supply information about ID and/or creationism.There are a bunch of rather detailed threads in Intelligent Design that you might join into.I might note that it doesn't make sense to say you are ID/Creationist since there is (in most cases) a big difference between those positions. E.g., The leading lights of the ID movement are accepting of an old earth and most of evolution (including the evolution of man). However, the usual use of the word creationist means (if not qualified a young earth, special creation believer.It might help if you clarified your position as you enter each discussion.You can note that Jar often calls himself a creationist too. That is technically correct since he believes that the Christian God created the universe but it is more confusing than helpful since he disagrees with the those who fit the more common use of the term "creationist".Meanwhile there is a specific thread to bring actual evidence for creationism to light: Discussing the evidence that support creationism You might contribute there as well.If you do happen to be a young-earther than the place you might start is: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). No one has managed to show what is wrong with the evidence supplied there.Again, welcome aboard. It can be a rough ride here but fun if you want to learn stuff.

This particular thread was just a discussion of whether there was even some small justification for a Theological Creationism and ID forum. So far I see no way that ID could even be imagined as science but look around and see if one of the threads in one of the ID forums look interesting.Pull up a stump and set a spell. If you keep your feet to the fire the smoke never gets in your eyes.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

great - as an Ider - maybe you could start a thread on the following - the three most important pieces of current ID research - experiments or studies that show the preditive powers of ID.Remember this is about ID so your thread shouldn't contain the word evolution because as a scientific theory ID should stand on it's own.

Easy enough, that task is so simple it doesnt require to much effort as you will see. Im curious about your request that I not mention the word EVOLUTION at times in the discussion, it is of course quite silly to ask this, due to the nature of the discussion. you fellas certainly have no problem mentioning Creationiost and ID in every other sentence. Dont worry though my establisment of ID will be stricly on the basis of Science and those definitions.. Im hoping you fellas or gals will understand the concepts involved in Polemics alittle better than the others on PBS. One thing I will give them credit for is that they are very eloquent and very knowledgeable of scientific theories and concepts. However, as some once said, "300 pages of crowded fact can confuse the very elect, but reduce it to a 3 line sylliogism and it will lay open the bare bones of the argument"., The Warren-Flew debate, 1978.Also are you saying I need to stay here or open a new thread somewhere else. While I have been debating these issues for nearly 35 years now, I am a knot-head with this internet stuff, walk me through this please.D Bertot

To admin. Thanks for the invite. I did not realize I already had 3 messages in just a few minutes. I clasify myself as a Creationist/IDer because the age of the earth is of little or no intrest to me in the dicussion of Cr/ID as science.. I have no problem of course believing in the Genesis acount as 24 hour periods and a old earth, due to what we call the Gap thoery which I pretty much accept. If however, I am wrong about the Gap theory and the earth is only 10 to 30 thousand years old, Im fine with that as well. I of course believe in God and the Bible as his Word, but in my mind it has no bearing on the issue. The establishment of a designer or possible designer as science simply does not rest with that item. I will of course discuss these as I go along.D Bertot

quote:

---

Im curious about your request that I not mention the word EVOLUTION at times in the discussion, it is of course quite silly to ask this, due to the nature of the discussion. you fellas certainly have no problem mentioning Creationiost and ID in every other sentence.

---

Sorry I should have been more specific - I was of course referring to the theory of evolution rather than the term evolution itself. The problem we have is that many many people turn up here and say "I believe in ID"/"ID is a scientific theory" but when asked to explain it, they seem only able to explain it in terms of what the TOE is not rather than what ID is and what it's predictive powers are.

quote:

---

Easy enough, that task is so simple it doesnt require to much effort as you will see.

---

Great - I look forward to you starting a thread outlining what you consider to be the three most important current applications of ID - I ask this question (well a similar one) of all IDers who turn up and I generally just get "well [the theory of] evolution is wrong because..." which says nothing at all about ID.Maybe you can be the first IDer to rise to the challenge.To start a new topic - click on the "new topic" button at the top of the page - this will allow you to create a topic proposal.Edited by CK, : clarification on topic starting.

To jar. To begin the ball rolling (I guess), I greatly beg to differ, when you say, "So far as I see there is no way ID could even be imagened as science".. This being the case maybe you could provide me with what you consider as the definition of Science. Also, I sometimes write in uppercase, simply to illustrate, not be rude.Further, it always helps in these discussion, if you identify yourself, as Atheist, Agnostic, Non-theist or evoulutionist, etc. So I will know how to formulate my arguments and responses.I guess this starts the ball rolling. I dont really know how this thing works. I will wait for you reply.D Bertot

Sorry I think I am responding to your old message before I get the new one. I think I got it now, I hope, Sorry. Will hitting the NEW TOPIC category, take me somewhere else, or will we stay here.D Bertot

Also, how do I insert one of you quotes?D Bertot.