I think you're giving Faith too much credit by assuming that her presentation of her position is accurate.
Well... let me say it like this. Regardless of the origin of her position, whether it's a faith in God, a faith in the Bible, or a faith in what her church says... it doesn't ultimately change the form of what she's doing. She has faith. And the faith provides basically a data point for her.
Yes, a data point that others don't recognize. Yes, a data point that is not empirical. But it acts like a data point. Those are the facts.
No, it's true. I've never run into an inerrantist who didn't put their personal beliefs before the Bible.
You yourself won't allow that God's relationship to the Bible could be anything other than the one you have decided. The Bible doesn't say that God wrote the flood story. You say that. You're quite prepared to dictate what God did or did not do, without God having iny say in the matter.
1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.
2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.
I'm cool with that. I don't think it needs to be brought into every discussion, though. We do have to live with each other. My goal is to provide a way to do that without the constant bickering and invading of each others' space.
Yes, I know many religious people are evangelistic. It doesn't make it OK to do as well. Let's keep our own beliefs and judgements in our own backyards and in our own communities. No matter who we are.
You have to be able to take Nuggin's perspective as well. From Nuggin's perspective, it IS a figment of your imagination. I'm not interested in judging "truth". The point is to be able to accept somebody else's viewpoint.
Nuggin's viewpoint is just the usual here at EvC. I've done my best with it. I've even capitulated to it at times. No more. What I laid out on IRH's thread about my terms, respect for my YEC premise, is IT for me. EvC denies it and it's time that's faced. Nuggin is just one more on that side of the argument, there's nothing more to understand. For them science trumps God, for me God trumps science. The fact is that the YEC premise is rejected at EvC and it is therefore a sham to pretend that debate is possible.
I'm not trying to tell people that your views are figments of your imagination. I'm trying to instruct people how to understand your point of view, from THEIR point of view. I'm trying to work with each person's faith, as it were.
Well if you want them to understand my point of view they have to understand that it is that God Himself has spoken, and I'm not looking for a dead child I mistakenly believe to be alive.
I think I didn't convey that well to Nuggin. I did a better job conveying it to Jar I think.
Just like others aren't going to convince you that your faith is wrong and yours is right, you're not going to convince others that their faith is wrong and yours is right.
Exactly what I've said. This is an unresolvable conflict, and here at EvC what that means is that debating it is impossible as the deck is stacked against creationists. Either my premise is accommodated as stated, without requiring me to capitulate to THEIR premise at the get-go or there is nothing more to discuss. There's really nothing more to say.
Ben - it's a nice idea it's just not going to happen.
A Criminologist may perfectly well understand the viewpoint of a murderer and how he constructs his reality but that does not mean that the criminologist is going to feel that viewpoint is valid or say to people "well it's horseshit of course".
Science assumes a conclusion, just like with the flood. But it differs in that it then asks 'if our conclusion (hypothesis) is true, what would we expect to find, what do we find and does what we find contradict our hypothesis'.
This is the scientific method, this is experimental science. I totally agree that what Faith is doing CANNOT be characterized as experimental science.
I think this might be erroneous. Forensics don't start with a known conclusion. Example: We have a dead body, that is our data.
I think this is just an argument of words and labelling then. "Conclusion" means, "the final end point." In forensics and in Faith's investigation, it's a chronological investigation. And in both cases, you basically have the information that anchors your investigation as data. In experimental science, you don't have that.
If you call a dead body just data, then you might as well call "the flood happened" data from Faith's perspective. I call it the "conclusion" because I think it's a little more than just data. It's the critical data that anchors the entire investigation.
I do appreciate your approach of analysis though. Keep working with me to see if we can straighten this out. It's possible I'm wrong... but I don't think so :)
If anybody from Kansas came on my thread and started talking about that stuff, I'd get in admin mode and suspend them.
Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread
There's a time and place for every discussion. This thread is not about it threats to get things in the school system. I suggested a thread where I thought it would be appropriate to address that issue. There are lots of threads like that, it doesn't have to be that one. Just, I'm sure it's not the issue of THIS thread.
Your opinion is not relevant here. If my premise, the YEC premise, is only going to be discounted and disrespected as it is here, and that's all you are doing, then the claim to debate with YECs is a sham. You've made up your mind at the outset and the rest is just window dressing.
Cool. Let's see if Faith can pull it off. She has a HUGE weight on her shoulders--she has to reformulate science... herself. It's a tall order for anybody to do. There's a lot of data out there.
But that's what she has to do. It's the only way to proceed when you take on her perspective. So, the choices are.. either treat her as crazy for believing in the Flood, or believe she's doing the only thing she can. Hammering on her methodology is silly. It's the most ... valid method to follow, given the specific unquestionable base she's working on.