YEC approaches to empirical investigation

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.Ben

I'm speaking for Jar here, but I really don't believe that anyone here is trying to "change Faith".What we are doing is a two pronged approach.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.If Faith never changes her mind, it doesn't change either of those two goals

Crap it's like it's raining out here. Who can keep up?It's like I just got caught outside in a sudden hailstorm, and I can't find a tree or house to duck under.Haha

Just because you disagree with me doesn't me my comment doesn't have value. I am not parodying the YEC view.You are trying to present their view in a certain (false) light.You honestly expect us to believe that your version of the YEC is correct when it's nothing like the one they are presenting? Come on.Present something close to what they are saying and we'll have a concensus, but you're just falsifying things to try and paint them in a good light.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

What?! Hello? Have you even heard of Kansas? They very specifically are asking us to accept into law their perspective on religion.

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".

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 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. 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.

But the dead body IS just data rather than the conclusion (or rather our tests upon the body provide our data). The conclusion is what we reach from putting together our data."This is a dead body" is not a conclusion - it is a starting point (and what that is offered further context by it's surroundings, the location of other people etc)"white male 6"2 12 stone, toxicology work shows traces of..." is getting nearer to a conclusion.Frankly your answers seem to be throwing darkness over the issue rather than any light or is that just me This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 11:29 AM

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.

Good feedback. I may be taking a non-standard viewpoint or vocabulary with regards to forensic science. I don't even watch CSI...I'll think about what you're saying. I'll try to reformulate my thoughts given your ... schema.Ben