Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 303 (242640)
09-12-2005 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by DominionSeraph
09-12-2005 3:30 PM


Re: Forensic Science
Yes, YEC does demand that those who hold a scientific position ignore the evidence, thus taking away the reason that it's held -- because it accounts for the evidence.
Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself. This is the whole point. Unfortunately the evidence you allow to discredit God is not anywhere near all that trustworthy, certainly not divine and far from absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 3:30 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 3:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 109 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 4:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 4:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 128 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 6:04 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 303 (242662)
09-12-2005 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 3:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Bunch of straw men there Jazz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 3:17 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 4:30 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 112 of 303 (242664)
09-12-2005 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Modulous
09-12-2005 4:13 PM


Re: God's autobiography is more reliable than the dramatization
Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself. This is the whole point. Unfortunately the evidence you allow to discredit God is not anywhere near all that trustworthy, certainly not divine and far from absolute.
I think you might misrepresent your opponents here. IIRC jar's position is that God's creation itself and what we can learn from it, 'trumps' a written account of a copy of a copy of an old oral story told by a prophet, recounted by fallen fallible sinners.
My position is also very different from your characterization. And other positions are that God doesn't exist so evidence doesn't 'trump' anything, evidence is just evidence.
In the interests of this thread, it would be nice if you could try and accurately understand the position held by 'the other side'.
The evidence I referenced to Rahvin I believe is shared by all on the science side of the debate. Oh maybe that was on the other thread. I'll try to link it then. But the point was that the evidence that is used against God's word is stuff as flimsy as Hutton's simply looking at an unconformity and declaring that it had to have required an OE period of time to form, and the rock-bottom position of all here that is based only on looking at the fossil sequence in the geo column, that of course it demonstrates that one species descended from another. This is pure conjecture and imaginative construct but it is treated as solid science though it has no more authority than human imagination, and it is pitted against the word of God on that flimsy authority and used as a base from which to abuse those who defend God's word against it.
The position held by all of you in common, which I have NOT misrepresented at all, and which in fact your post confirms in spite of yourself, is that the Bible is not to be treated as the literal inerrant authoritative word of God but is open to all manner of human conjecture and interpretation just as the rocks are. But Bible inerrancy is the position I hold and all Biblical YECs hold, as the premise for this debate and for our interest in being here at all, and for it to be discounted is to stack the deck in any so-called debate.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 4:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 5:03 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 114 of 303 (242669)
09-12-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by DominionSeraph
09-12-2005 4:11 PM


Re: Forensic Science
Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself.
No. I just don't care.
What might be true is irrelevant. I only seek to explain what I see.
If the evidence has been faked by God, I don't care. Being deceived by a god wouldn't put a dent in my ego.
If the true relationship between the evidence is too complex to unravel, I don't care. Old-Earth works. And if a god set up the universe so that a 99th percentile human can't recognize that the Earth is young, I can take being set up for such failure in stride.
If my eyes are deceiving me, I don't care. Again, I only seek to explain what I see. I don't care what might exist in some hypothetical world that I cannot see.
I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works, and reject that which doesn't. And YEC doesn't work.
It doesn't matter what your particular reason for it is, your position has in common with all the other OE positions here that you are willing to discount God's word, the Biblical revelation, but that is precisely what the YEC's position is based on and to exclude it makes debate impossible, and you quite willing to criticize God Himself (you don't know it's NOT God's word, do you?).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 4:11 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 115 of 303 (242670)
09-12-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 4:30 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
What I am declaring for the record is your misrepresentation of the facts that are on the record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 4:30 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 4:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 117 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 5:00 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 303 (242684)
09-12-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Modulous
09-12-2005 5:03 PM


Re: God's autobiography is more reliable than the dramatization
First let me say that I generally appreciate your attitude and your willingness to accept the YEC premise, which I should have said before.
No, the evidence isn't used against God's word (though some do use it in that manner) the evidence is for an old earth which just happens to disagree with your interpretation of God's word.
But the evidence IS used against God's word, because the evidence is trusted as if it were something final and authoritative, and the fact that it contradicts God's word is simply overridden, and this even though the "evidence" is no more than what mere imagination comes up with, such as Hutton's view that uncomformities MUST have taken ages to form just because he couldn't imagine the mechanics by which it happened otherwise -- nothing tested, no experiments, no scientific method involved at all. And the same with the fossil sequence -- it is taken as evidence for evolution based ONLY on its LOOKING LIKE a sequence -- sheer imagination. So much for scientific rigor.
However, even if the evidence were better than this, knowing that it contradicts the Bible makes accepting it over the Bible using it against God's word.
This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 05:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 5:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 5:40 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 303 (242686)
09-12-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 5:00 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
You are just building more and more straw men. I have not disputed anything on your list, I've even asserted original horizontality myself. Interpretation is what the argument is about, not facts, and I don't even dispute the interpretation in some of those cases. Please stop misrepresenting me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 5:00 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 5:21 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 125 of 303 (242696)
09-12-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 5:21 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Fine. I'll even give on the original horizontality. Do you dispute that you were ignorant of the other facts before you were told?
Fact: Mutations happen.
Fact: Novel mutations happen.
Fact: Law of original horizontality
Fact: Burried river, canyon, island topography.
Fact: Fossil and structure strain.
Fact: High profile structures erode faster.
Yes I dispute that as I learned quite a bit of it on my own googles. I have always disputed the interpretation of everything on your list but original horizontality (which for pete's sake is common sense, sheesh), but I do not dispute the facts themselves. I question that everything that is called a mutation is a genuine mutation and that awaits further study. I wish it were possible to understand it better from posts here but that doesn't seem to be happening. I dispute the interpretation of buried landscapes as long-lived phenomena, seeing them as very short-lived stages in the Flood in its gradual recession from the land which certainly involved temporary rivers and lakes. I do not dispute faster erosion of high profile structures but I do dispute that it's faster than the erosion of the folded Appalachians which exposed more erodable surface to erosion according to the diagram deerbreh posted -- and yes I got that from his diagram. And you do get credit for informing me about strain in hard fossils and rock structures, but I'm still not convinced that this describes the formation of the Appalachians, though it doesn't matter if it does -- as you never gave any direct evidence of strain in their structure at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 5:21 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 6:17 PM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 303 (242698)
09-12-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rahvin
09-12-2005 4:59 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Rahvin, I think you need to catch up on this discussion. You are saying nothing that I have not already either agreed with or answered many times, and my emphasizing that debate here is a sham is for the purpose of making it clear to the science-minded that it is in fact a sham, as they are insisting on an impossible a priori from people who wouldn't even be here but for that premise, in effect demanding concession to their side of the debate before it even begins. And yes, I may very well give up on EvC altogether as a result, but first it needs to be clearly seen by the science side here exactly how they are stacking the deck against the very people they claim they want to debate with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 4:59 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 6:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 129 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 6:05 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 130 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 6:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 09-12-2005 6:37 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 303 (242791)
09-13-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 1:32 PM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
For the record, our possition is very simple. "We believe what the evidence shows us to be correct."
Yes, although often it's really not evidence but untestable interpretations of evidence that you are treating with such confidence. I've said many times that science subjects God's word to evidence, but YECs subject evidence to God's word. This means that anything that contradicts God's word has to be rethought.
The more evidence that indicates the same thing, the more reason we have to believe it. The more reliable that information, the more reason to believe it. The more testable that information, the more reason to believe it.
Yes, I know. But for a YEC God is the authority over all of it, and if it contradicts Him, it has to be rethought.
This is dramatically different from "We believe that this one source of information is more valuable than all other information combined."
Yes it is dramatically different. The one relies on human interpretation of evidence, the other relies on what is understood to be the revelation of the God who made it all. This is a real unresolvable conflict without one side giving in to the other.
These two possitions can never come to agreement, so debate is futile.
I've been saying that debate is futile. That's been my theme song today. I want it clearly recognized that a priori excluding the YEC premise renders debate impossible, and since that is the policy of EvC, which considers the YEC premise to violate its standards of science, it needs to be recognized that it is their own policy that makes it impossible. There may in fact be no solution, meaning debate just IS impossible, but it needs to be recognized that you can't exclude your opponent's premise and call your terms fair. All the disputes, the berating and namecalling of YECs and suspensions of YECs are based on the fact that YECs operate from this premise that is rejected by the very nature of the EvC enterprise. This is Catch-22 to the YECs. This is stacking the deck. I simply want this recognized -- again, whether or not there is a solution to it.
And if you truly are hands off about the schools, then I have absolutely no problem with you going the rest of your life with your beliefs. I think we both can agree that what an individual does in the privacy of their own home is their business and no one elses
.
I would like to see a mass exodus of Christians from the public schools into private schools and homeschooling. But this has nothing whatever to do with private beliefs. I simply think the schools are not good for Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:32 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Nuggin, posted 09-13-2005 12:09 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 138 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 2:41 AM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024