Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 2:49 AM
21 online now:
dwise1, Heathen, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 136 of 303 (242795)
09-13-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
I think we are in complete agreement here, though I must point out that
I want it clearly recognized that a priori excluding the YEC premise renders debate impossible

can just as easily be

"I want it clearly recognized that a priori excluding of science renders debate impossible."

Be both have our basis for reality. We don't agree with each others basis. End of discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32229
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 137 of 303 (242802)
09-13-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 1:38 PM


Re: I don't buy it
Why should I be held to a standard higher than the YECs?

Well, the fact is that most of the YECs who come here are not scientists. Those who are, however, don't fare much better than the rest of us in this environment unfortunately. In a way it is a nice privilege to get to read scientific discussion -- except when it's so jargon-ridden it's useless to us. Speaking for myself, it may be mostly a mental exercise on the level of a game, though I'm quite serious about it at the same time, despite my limitations. I'm a decent puzzle-solver. But I do feel the same way The Literalist feels -- give me a few billion to take on the evolution paradigm and I'll work hard at it. I'll comb the Christian schools and churches for the smartest most science-oriented geek type kids who are also genuine literalist Bible believers, and I'll find the best science teachers to groom them and we'll set up labs and field work and a reading load that should rival any scientific establishment in the world. THEN we'll start to see some progress in this debate.

I admit, if I want my point to be credible, then I need to back up my argument, but frankly I think this board needs some more of us Dark Side ToErs.

In that case you will have even fewer creationists around to deal with.

The YECs will never understand our frustration until they are faced with having to debate their own style of debate.

The problem here is not with failing to understand your frustration, it's with a general failure of all to understand what the terms of this debate require, and that in fact it may not be possible at all because we must have impossible concessions from each other at the start.

I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.

No, because you simply sink into silly straw man caricatures and it's not worth bothering with them.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 12:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:38 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Nuggin, posted 09-13-2005 12:24 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 159 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:00 AM Faith has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 138 of 303 (242803)
09-13-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
often it's really not evidence but untestable interpretations of evidence that you are treating with such confidence.

When you next travel on an airplane, remember that you are doing so on the basis of untestable interpretations of evidence.

I've said many times that science subjects God's word to evidence,

Indeed, you have said that many times. It has been wrong every time you have said it.

but YECs subject evidence to God's word.

I expect that's wrong, too. Many YEC's have not even read the Bible. For those who have read it, the most you can say is that they are subjecting the evidence to their untestable interpretations of the Biblical text.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:29 AM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:32 AM nwr has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 693 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 139 of 303 (242804)
09-13-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Stop calling my theories straw men characictures. A straw man is when someone presents an argument just to knock it down.

I am supporting my theories. Others may try to know them down. They may be wrong, but they certainly are not straw men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32229
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 140 of 303 (242806)
09-13-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by nwr
09-13-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
When you next travel on an airplane, remember that you are doing so on the basis of untestable interpretations of evidence.

No, when it comes to flying airplanes what you have is not untestable interpretations but solid testable science at every phase of the accumulated knowledge of how to fly an airplane. This is NOT the case with OE theory or evolutionism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:23 AM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:12 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32229
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 141 of 303 (242808)
09-13-2005 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by nwr
09-13-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
I've said many times that science subjects God's word to evidence,
======================
Indeed, you have said that many times. It has been wrong every time you have said it.

You have simply failed to get the point despite my explanations. God's word is the Bible and if evidence contradicts it science chooses the evidence over God's word. That's what it means that science subjects God's word to evidence. To disprove the statement you would have to show that God's word is seriously taken into account when weighing evidence, and in fact that since it is God who has spoken you'd have to side with God's word against the evidence.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 12:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:23 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:46 AM Faith has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 142 of 303 (242809)
09-13-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:32 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You have simply failed to get the point despite my explanations. God's word is the Bible and if evidence contradicts it science chooses the evidence over God's word.

On the contrary, what you are saying is incorrect. As normal people would read your words, they are a statement about the intentions of scientists. What you are saying, in effect, is:
Scientists read the Bible. Scientists come to interpret it in the same way that you interpret it. Scientists then come up with scientific accounts that deliberately contradict this interpretation of the Biblical text.
But that's not what happens at all. Scientists are just following where the evidence leads them. Often, they believe that they are investigating God's creation, and are not in any way contradicting it.

What you could perhaps be saying, is that scientists are coming up with accounts that contradict your understanding of what is God's word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:04 AM nwr has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 15237
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 143 of 303 (242813)
09-13-2005 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:00 AM


No Catch 22
What yo actually mean is that the evidence is aginst you. You can try to dismiss it with falsehoods, invent implausible interpretations - and then whine when they are criticised and use bullying and abuse but it still doesn't work.

So basically you are now demanding that debate must have a built-in clause which guarantess you victory. You demand that your theology must be accepted as factually correct. i.e you demand that the rules are completely stacked in your favour.

Of course if you wanted to use theology as your basis you could choose to argue theology rather than the empirical evidence. You chose not to do so fromn the time you started posting here. By refusing to do so you have eliminated any reasonable prospect of getting your theological assumptions accepted as true.

So you are left without a leg to stand on. There is no onus on anyone else to accept your theological assumptions. Fair debate does NOT require a rule insisting that yor theological beliefs must be accepted as unquestionably true - in fact it REQUIRES that there is no such rule. You can USE your theological beliefs outside the science forums IF - and ONLY if - you are prepared to defend them. THAT is fair debate.

If you can't win a fair debate then that doesn't mean that the rules must be changed to rig things in your favour. It doesn't mean that the deck is stacked against you. It just means that you have a losing hand. That's your problem - and not one that should be "fixed" by rigging the rules to guaantee you victory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:14 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32229
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 144 of 303 (242864)
09-13-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by nwr
09-13-2005 12:46 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
What you could perhaps be saying, is that scientists are coming up with accounts that contradict your understanding of what is God's word.

Yes, but this is a typical evasion, because my understanding is the traditional orthodox understanding. The allegorical view of Genesis is an invention of the liberal churches since the Enlightenment and especially since Darwin, which is what I mean by an accommodation of the word of God to science. There is nothing in the Bible itself to justify that interpretation. It is written like straight narrative history. So the only thing that justifies it is human willingness to contradict God. And the idea that "God's word" is really His creation itself is a particularly extreme evasion of what the term refers to, and a complete denial that we have no ability to read His creation without His written word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:46 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:35 AM Faith has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 145 of 303 (242869)
09-13-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by PaulK
09-13-2005 2:41 AM


Re: No Catch 22
PaulK,

So basically you are now demanding that debate must have a built-in clause which guarantess you victory. You demand that your theology must be accepted as factually correct. i.e you demand that the rules are completely stacked in your favour.

I don't understand why it "guarantees victory". I think Faith will be hard pressed to make the observable facts fit with flood theory, for no reason other than developing solid theories is hard! Furthermore, if Faith is actually able to do it, all she's shown is that the Bible can be made consistent with observed facts. That's all. It doesn't make a statement that the Bible is true.

So I still don't see how this type of debate is "stacked" at all. I simply removes the need to discuss whether the Bible is true or not. We have all sorts of Forums for that. To non-believers, the debate being proposed is, "Assuming (some interpretation of) the bible is true, can we resolve it with observations made about the world?"

(Yes, Faith, I understand in your perspecitve, the debate is "How do we resolve the facts in the Bible with the flood?")

Anyway, I don't see how that makes things "stacked at all." It seems like a fair question to ask and answer. Some people find it interesting, others do not.. but I still think it's a fair question to ask.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 2:41 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:32 AM Ben! has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15237
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 146 of 303 (242875)
09-13-2005 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:14 AM


Re: No Catch 22
I don't think that we have the same view of what Faith wants. So far as I can tell Faith doesn't want to see IF the physical evidence can be reconciled with the Flood. Faith wants the Flood taken as fact because she says God says so - and then it msut be assumed that the physical evidence can be reconciled with the Flood,. She's perefctly entitled to that view, but she isn't entitled to demand that anyone else accepts it or to insist that it must be taken as a given in a debate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:14 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 AM PaulK has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 147 of 303 (242877)
09-13-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
09-13-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Yes, but this is a typical evasion, because my understanding is the traditional orthodox understanding.

You are still missing the point, which is that your assertion "science chooses the evidence over God's word" is a statement about the intent of scientists, whereas in fact most scientist are not acting on any such intent. My suggested rewording was to express your point in a way that does not falsely ascribe intentions to the scientists. Granted, you don't like my wording. Choose your own. But use a wording that doesn't falsely ascribe intentions.

The allegorical view of Genesis is an invention of the liberal churches since the Enlightenment and especially since Darwin, which is what I mean by an accommodation of the word of God to science.

The "traditional orthodox understanding" of the flood appears to be that Noah took two of each kind onto the ark. The descendents of those later evolved (micro evolution, not macro evolution) into the diversity of life we see today (including the fossil record). As best I can tell, this "traditional orthodox understanding" is the invention of Ken Ham. It is a very recent interpretation.

Like it or not, traditional orthodox theologians are heavily engaged in making interpretations of the Biblical text, and adapting those to fit modern times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:57 AM nwr has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 148 of 303 (242879)
09-13-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
09-13-2005 9:32 AM


Re: No Catch 22
She's perefctly entitled to that view, but she isn't entitled to demand that anyone else accepts it or to insist that it must be taken as a given in a debate.

I don't think anybody is entitled to demand that other people make demands about what is and is not "true" in this sense. But for the purposes of debate, I think it's well reasonable to demand that everybody recognize something as an unquestionable starting point in the debate. I take it as Faith insisting that you understand she takes the Bible as literally true. I don't see that she's demanding to have your agreement to that--just that you don't question it in the thread. I think she's demanding that you know her starting point, and allow her to work under it.

I could be wrong. That's been my take.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:32 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:53 AM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:01 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15237
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 149 of 303 (242885)
09-13-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:39 AM


Re: No Catch 22
The idea that certan debates should have preconditions of the sort you suggest is not unreasonable - if it is stated upfront - but it can't be what Faith means. For a start Faith doesn't restrict herself to threads with such conditions. And if it isn't stated upfron hten Faith has no right to impose it on others.

So it can't be what Faith means in her claim that the deck is stacked against her. Her comments only make sense if she means that she wants her belief that "God said X" to be accepted as a valid arguemnt for X. And - given her refusal to discuss the Bible it is an argument which she wants placed beyond question.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 9:39 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:26 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32229
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 150 of 303 (242887)
09-13-2005 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by nwr
09-13-2005 9:35 AM


Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Yes, but this is a typical evasion, because my understanding is the traditional orthodox understanding.

You are still missing the point, which is that your assertion "science chooses the evidence over God's word" is a statement about the intent of scientists, whereas in fact most scientist are not acting on any such intent.

Any scientist who knows what the Bible says about Creation and the Flood is intentionally denying it by supporting contradictory views. Those who don't know what the Bible says may be excused for having no such intent.

The "traditional orthodox understanding" of the flood appears to be that Noah took two of each kind onto the ark. The descendents of those later evolved (micro evolution, not macro evolution) into the diversity of life we see today (including the fossil record). As best I can tell, this "traditional orthodox understanding" is the invention of Ken Ham. It is a very recent interpretation.

It sounds like creationist thinking in general, not that of any particular creationist, but in any case it is not an interpretation of the Bible but a scientific hypothesis based on the Bible. The Bible says Noah took seven of the clean Kinds into the ark, and two of the unclean. How their descendants varied from then on is NOT an interpretation of the Bible but a scientific hypothesis that takes the Bible as foundational. Also the fossil record is understood to be all the living creatures that had lived BEFORE the flood and died in it, and they would be expected to show great differences and variations from those that descended from the ones saved on the ark, because of the limiting of the gene pool as a result of that bottleneck.

I am still unable to figure out how we got from the standard idea of varieties of species to micro vs macro "evolution" over the last few decades. This is no recent invention, it used to be common terminology -- it used to be understood that species vary, that you can breed all kinds of interesting variations on a species, without the slightest reason to suppose you would ever get anything BUT that species. Somehow there has been a terminological sleight of hand pulled on us that forces evolutionistic assumptions on us, and I haven't been able to find a discussion that helps me sort it out yet.

Like it or not, traditional orthodox theologians are heavily engaged in making interpretations of the Biblical text, and adapting those to fit modern times.

They are not traditional orthodox theologians who interpret the Bible against what it clearly actually says, they are liberal revisionist theologians.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 09:59 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 9:35 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM Faith has responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019