|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's your thread, but IMO, this debate is impossible. Faith begins with a particular unfalsifiable ideology about scriptural interpretations, and all conclusions and inferences are subject to that ideology. She has made her position quite clear on this point. However, this sort of epistemology is vastly different from a scientific epistemology. In a scientific epistemology, every assertion must be falsifiable, even (perhaps especially) assertions about the proper interpretation of religious texts and scientific implications thereof. Here is simply too wide an epistemological gap to be bridged, IMO. You may be right, as I anticipated from the beginning, that there is absolutely no room here at EvC for the YEC point of view. It is considered to violate the foundations of science. That being the case it is a sham even to pretend to have debates with those who begin from the Bible, and YECs should be told this up front, even in fact warned not to bother coming here at all. This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 09:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4608 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Oh well.. At least it keeps them off the street so they can't do any stupid things
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6451 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Well, you could adopt the strategy of putting the Bible away and attempting to argue for YEC based strictly on the scientific merits or demerits. After all, a neutral observer who does not use the Bible as a religious text, but has no particular axe to grind against YEC in principle, ought to be given the opportunity to evaluate the case in such a fashion.
Your refusal to treat YEC as a falsifiable hypothesis is really what vitiates the possibility of such a debate. It has nothing to do with [your particular interpretation of] the Bible per se. You could be arguing for an old universe from the Rig-Veda, but if you insisted that that hypothesis was to be regarded as unfasifiable, that wouldn't be science either. There is room for the YEC view at this board, but the arguments advanced must remain scientific to be considered scientific, and are going to be subject to rebuttal. I certainly think any YEC that at the end of the day makes their case solely from their interpretation of scripture is going to find the board frustrating. Only you can decide what your goals in posting here are and whether it is worth the frustration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, you could adopt the strategy of putting the Bible away and attempting to argue for YEC based strictly on the scientific merits or demerits. After all, a neutral observer who does not use the Bible as a religious text, but has no particular axe to grind against YEC in principle, ought to be given the opportunity to evaluate the case in such a fashion. In fact I started out doing just that, and did not refer to the Bible at all, and no matter how consistent I was at sticking to the factual physical phenomena opponents would nevertheless accuse me of arguing from the Bible. Well, strictly speaking I was NOT arguing from the Bible, but the fact is that a YEC cannot operate from the premise that a strict reading of Genesis is falsifiable, and in the end I realize that has to be said up front. It is the reason for all the friction here at EvC, all the screaming rages about how YECs violate science. It is true, we do violate this supposedly scientific precept that one cannot have an unfalsifiable premise. We have an unfalsifiable premise: God has spoken and contradicting God is NOT an option. We violate YOUR standards, you violate ours. This is what I have been spelling out here. You are willing to contradict God's written word; a YEC will contradict anything science says over God's written word.
Your refusal to treat YEC as a falsifiable hypothesis is really what vitiates the possibility of such a debate. Quite true, as I just affirmed. But the converse is also true: what vitiates the possibility of such a debate is the insistence of scientists that God's written word is falsifiable.
It has nothing to do with [your particular interpretation of] the Bible per se. You could be arguing for an old universe from the Rig-Veda, but if you insisted that that hypothesis was to be regarded as unfasifiable, that wouldn't be science either. Yes, science has defined all unfalsifiable premises as non-science, including the word of the God who made the universe they claim to be studying. There is absolutely no room here for the unfalsifiable written word of God and that is why the whole idea of an evo-creo debate is a sham.
There is room for the YEC view at this board, but the arguments advanced must remain scientific to be considered scientific, and are going to be subject to rebuttal. Exactly. As long as we abandon our fundamental premise and are willing to go against the God whose word we are here to apply to scientific questions, there is plenty of "room" for our view. But it is no longer our view, it has been subordinated to the current standards of Science.
I certainly think any YEC that at the end of the day makes their case solely from their interpretation of scripture is going to find the board frustrating. Only you can decide what your goals in posting here are and whether it is worth the frustration. My goals are to defend the YEC point of view, which cannot be done if the very premises of the YEC point of view are denied me, and that is obviously the case here at EvC and it's time everybody acknowledged that up front. This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 10:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Let's take the discussions of whether or not this process is possible to the thread in Is It Science. seeMessage 1
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1 Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Your particular view,Faith, isn't the one that EvC is all about. Most of us don't mind you decided that the Bible is literally true. I, myself, am quite happy with the position you put forward here.
It is totally Bible base. It is admittedly and completely not a science based view. That is fine. That view has no place in the secular science classroom. As long as YEC's keep out of the classromm I have no problem with them. It is so-called "scientific-creationism" that we argue with. It does claim that the Bible can be supported scientifically and, therefore, is subject to scientific falsification as well that "we" argue with. That "we" inlcudes the geologists (e.g.) that see that the Bible (in parts) can not be supported scientifically and "we" includes the believers who do not thing the Bible should be set up for a scientific challenge. The "scientific-creationism" is not science and it is a destructive influence on true faith. You are welcome to your views and way of putting them forward as long as you continue to openingly admit that they aren't science. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 09-12-2005 11:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But we are not discussing the classroom, we are discussing debate at EvC, and the fact is that the YEC premise is disallowed and that makes debate impossible. If the Bible must be treated as falsifiable then YECs should refuse to participate here. I should have recognized this and acted accordingly long ago. So, again, if my premise of an unfalsifiable literal inerrant Bible cannot be respected, debate is impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Pardon me for stepping in here - I don't intend to participate in the real debate, should it actually begin.
If the Bible must be treated as falsifiable then YECs should refuse to participate here. I should have recognized this and acted accordingly long ago. But, Faith, your position similarly eliminates the possibility of debate. The fact is, the non-literallists are not going to agree with you that the Bible is unfalsifiable. That's the entire other side of the debate. Saying that the Bible must be simply taken as true from the beginning essentially creates a magic "I win, because teh Bible says so and any evidence to the contrary must be teh wrong!!1!" button for YEC's, and then the non-YEC's would have no reason to post. What we need is some kind of middle ground - you need to understand that the rest of us disagree with you just as much as we need to understand that the Bible to you is just as authoritative as direct observation. It's not science, but it allows for debate. We need to be able to present evidence for and against Biblical literalism for there to be any debate on Biblical topics. There has to be some way we can do that while respecting your beliefs as a literalist. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
What we need is some kind of middle ground - you need to understand that the rest of us disagree with you just as much as we need to understand that the Bible to you is just as authoritative as direct observation. It's not science, but it allows for debate. I will put my thought on this in and then I am going to drop out because I don't think there are grounds for an effective debate here. There is no middle ground between inerrent biblical literalism and geology. As long as one side is going to say "This is what God says" and there is no debating it there will not be a "middle ground". If on the other hand the YEC side would admit that there is a possibility, however tiny, that they might be wrong about what God said you would at least have some grounds for a debate. Barring that, I think the whole thing is wasted time so I pledge to stay out of it after this post. edited quote box codes. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 09-12-2005 01:56 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminIRH Inactive Member |
The last page of posts have been off topic and contrary to what I originally asked for, i.e. that only 3 evolutionists AT MOST get involved here. So far I've counted DBlevins, paisano, deerbrah, Annafan, Rahvin, and NosyNed. DBlevins has asked to participate, so the rest of you can draw straws or something for the last two spots.
I am also annoyed that Faith decided to start an off-topic discussion here while waiting for me. My stipulation of no off topic discussion extends to ALL who participate, no exceptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2921 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
I have already declared myself out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6451 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
I am a physicist, not a geologist, so I recuse myself as well. IMO it would be best for geologists to represent the OE side, if willing and able.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4465 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
I'm going to begin with an overall summary, and if I can figure out how, some photos of the area. Feel free to ask me specific questions regarding particular formations, rock types or terms.
Ballyferriter is situated in the northwest Dingle penninsula in County Kerry. The topography conists mostly of wide sandy beaches in the east and rocky beaches with high cliffs to the west. The best outcrops are along the coastline, as outcrops inland are sparce and not altogether useful. To the east, the Wine Strand area is dominated by red conglomerates and sandstones. These form a large open syncline which becomes faulted to the west. The headland area to the north, called Sybil Head, is formed from tough sandstones and conglomerates, which is both faulted and unconformable against the Wine Strand lithology. To the west, Ferriter's Cove is composed of grey, yellow and green siltstones, all with a very high percentage of fossils. These are also faulted and unconformable against the Sybil Head lithology, and at the fault itself a dark grey shale is found. Further south and west from Feritter's Cove, Clogher Bay is composed of soft green mudstone which continues south into Clogher Head, and forms another smaller syncline with thick volcanic ash beds on the outside, and a red conglomerate lying unconformably in the core. The faults in this area are extensive and numerous. A large fault and unconformity run west-east across Sybil Head. A second fault runs south-west through Ferriter's cove and offsets the siltstone beds. Another forked fault crosses the siltstone lithology again further south between Ferriter's Cove and Clogher Bay. Clogher Head is broken by two faults which offset the core of the syncline. The rock layers are overturned to the north of the Sybil Head unconformity, and in the core of the Clogher Head syncline. The angle at which they are tilting is on average 50 degrees, and the dip direction is generally to the south east. The fossils found are Chondrites - in great abundance in Clogher Bay - and brachiopods found all over the siltstone and mudstone beds.(Chondrites is a trace fossil similar to worm tracks.) I can't post the geological map I created, seeing as its 5 feet square and resizing it removes all the pertinent detail. I'll try to take smaller sections of it and post them later. The Rock Hound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
if you have Google Earth you can enter 52.184300 -10.025930 to get an overview of the area of interest.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-12-2005 02:24 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But, Faith, your position similarly eliminates the possibility of debate. The fact is, the non-literallists are not going to agree with you that the Bible is unfalsifiable. That is true, which is what is finally being made explicit to the point that the pretense of debate is being exposed. However, this board is hosted by the science side and it is their job to make room for their opponents if they sincerely want to debate. But there cannot be genuine debate when the ground rules preclude the very premise of the opposition. The science side insists that God's own revelation is open to falsification by whatever evidence they think they have, which is often pretty paltry evidence -- such as the mere speculations of observers -- oh yes that is so, they are nothing more serious than Hutton's deduction that an unconformity *had* to have taken OE amounts of time to form, or the familiar one that the sequence of fossils "proves" evolution. Both determined by what? Scientific method? Experimental science? Testable hypotheses? Hardly. Sheer raw "Jeepers, it sure looks that way don't it?" Some "incontrovertible evidence" they are willing to say defeats the word of God Himself who made it all. Yes, this is a War between an Irresistible Force and an Immovable Object, except that one side of this stand-off is God Himself and the other side is human arrogance. I know Who is going to win in the end but in the meantime it would be nice if worshipers of the great god Science would get a clue.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024