Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 6:43 PM
25 online now:
edge, ooh-child, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,885 Year: 11,921/19,786 Month: 1,702/2,641 Week: 211/708 Day: 38/40 Hour: 7/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 151 of 303 (242888)
09-13-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Ben!
09-13-2005 9:39 AM


Re: No Catch 22
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.

And it's a correct take.


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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 303 (242897)
09-13-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by PaulK
09-13-2005 9:53 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.

I have only recently realized that it has to be stated clearly that the EvC emphasis on scientific thinking, which no YEC wants to deny, nevertheless contains a restriction on YECs that makes debate unfair and fair debate impossible. The term "science" clouds the problem in a way, but the problem is that EvC's presuppositions a priori exclude YEC presuppositions, which certainly makes real debate impossible. Yes, YECs do come in here and try to play under these rules but soon find themselves warned and upbraided and finally suspended for simply having the premises that make us YECs and for doing what we came to do. EvC has every right to run debates on whatever principles they like, but in that case YECs need to be warned clearly that this means that their very reason for being YECs is eliminated up front. Do you think you could debate under such restrictions on YOUR presuppositions?

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.

No, not an argument, a premise, a presupposition, a given, my starting point. It's what the whole debate is about and you can't rule it out as invalid just because it's from the Bible, or the debate idea is completely ludicrous. That doesn't mean you have to believe it, but you can't just declare a YEC out of bounds for assuming it, which goes on all the time here. That's what I mean by making debate a sham. The idea of science that is promoted here insists that the Bible must be subject to science and treated as falsifiable, but that is absolutely out of the question for a YEC. If you want to continue on that premise that it is falsifiable, then YECs cannot participate in the debate.

And - given her refusal to discuss the Bible it is an argument which she wants placed beyond question.

Not really, as I know that can't be done by most here. I really just want it acknowledged that the EvC demand that the Bible be subject to science makes genuine debate impossible.

Unless you can come up with a solution. I don't think there is one.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 10:30 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 9:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 10:51 AM Faith has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 153 of 303 (242902)
09-13-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
09-13-2005 9:57 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
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.

Faith is a liar.

Now that was a statement about your intentions. There is as much basis for this statement about your intentions as there is for your statements about the intentions of scientists -- i.e. none.

What I am trying to say, is that your statements about scientists are nasty. They are not statements that could be made under "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." They are not statements that could be made under "Love thy neighbor as thyself." When you repeatedly make these false allegations of intention, you are being quite unchristian.

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.

Did Noah take two (or more) lions, tigers, sabre toothed tigers, two african elephants, two indian elephants, two mastodons, two kangaroos, two koalas (to name just a few)? Ken Ham says No. Like it or not, that is an interpretation of the biblical text. You cannot dismiss it as "but a scientific hypothesis".

The idea that fundamentalists are taking the Bible literally, while liberals are interpreting it, is just nonsense. Fundamentalists are up to their necks in interpretation.

If you want a strictly literalist reading of the Bible, as free of interpretation as is possible, you might go to an athiest web site. The athiests enjoy pointing out what the text actually says, for they delight in pointing to the numerous contradictions that emerge from such a literalist reading. It is only by means of their heavy dependence on interpretation, that fundamentalists avoid these contradictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:39 AM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:44 AM nwr has responded
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:56 AM nwr has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 154 of 303 (242908)
09-13-2005 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Now THAT post is what I call nasty.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM nwr has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 155 of 303 (242913)
09-13-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:33 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
The idea that fundamentalists are taking the Bible literally, while liberals are interpreting it, is just nonsense. Fundamentalists are up to their necks in interpretation.

At some point this is a problem with terminological confusion. I did NOT say that fundamentalists DON'T INTERPRET. I've even said the opposite, you can't NOT interpret. The point is whether the Bible text is violated in the interpretation, and that's what liberal theologians do. For instance, there is NO basis for an allegorical reading of Genesis IN THE TEXT. That has to be imposed on the test from extraneous assumptions.

And there is no nasty anything in saying that if you know the Bible and are willing for it to be falsified you are putting science above God's own word. It's simple fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:59 AM Faith has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 156 of 303 (242917)
09-13-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
09-13-2005 10:26 AM


Re: No Catch 22
Thanks for confirming that my impression was correct.

quote:

I really just want it acknowledged that the EvC demand that the Bible be subject to science makes genuine debate impossible.

Well you aren't going to get that acknowledgement because it isn't true. For a start you wouldn't be saying that if the scientific evidence actually supported your interpretation of the Bible. If you need to appeal to the Bible over the scientific evidence it's because they show different things.

You could also legitimately debate which side the physical evidence supported. YOU don't have to accept it as more authoritative than your beliefs, even if others do. But equally you would not be free to introduce your theological views as an argument into such a thread - because they are not relevant.

Or you could take part in theological debates on the nature and purpose of the Bible (there ARE views - even within Christianity - other than yours).

No, legitimate debate is possible BECAUSE you can't insist that your views are accepted automatically.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:37 AM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 157 of 303 (242918)
09-13-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:33 AM


Two of a Kind, a Kind being what?
Did Noah take two (or more) lions, tigers, sabre toothed tigers, two african elephants, two indian elephants, two mastodons, two kangaroos, two koalas (to name just a few)? Ken Ham says No. Like it or not, that is an interpretation of the biblical text. You cannot dismiss it as "but a scientific hypothesis".

No it is not an interpretation of the text, it's an idea about what a Kind probably includes, since the text does not specify. That is not an interpretation of the Bible but a scientific hypothesis. I am not very familiar with Ken Ham but what he is saying sounds like standard creationism which is easily intuited by a Bible believer -- that all the varieties we have came from one original pair of the Kind. I don't know for sure what all the different categories consist in but creationists do seem to agree that there is only one elephant Kind, from which our modern types as well as the mastodons descended, the mastodon being a variation that became extinct in the Flood; there is only one cat Kind which includes all cats, great and small, the sabre-toothed tiger variation having become extinct in the Flood and the cheetah being a type that got severely bottlenecked; there is only one bear Kind, and the koala and the panda are types that got bottlenecked somewhere; I don't know the best thinking about the kangaroo but I would suppose it is a variation on a Kind of which most other types are extinct. Etc.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 10:59 AM

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 11:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:33 AM nwr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Jazzns, posted 09-13-2005 1:44 PM Faith has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 158 of 303 (242919)
09-13-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-13-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
And there is no nasty anything in saying that if you know the Bible and are willing for it to be falsified you are putting science above God's own word. It's simple fact.

It is nasty when you make allegations regarding the intentions of scientists based on your interpretation of the Bible. An assessment of a scientist's intentions must be based on that scientist's own interpretation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:03 AM nwr has responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 159 of 303 (242920)
09-13-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I don't buy it
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 just wanted to point out that this has basically already happened historically. Catastrophism was the name of the game at one time. We had people gathering data and making observations based on that paradigm. We can imagine them running around looking at the geology around them, thinking "Wow, that flood was awesome. The bible says it happened; now let’s find the evidence for it." They assumed that the flood happened, much like you do. Some went around thinking; wouldn't this be great to glorify God, by understanding his creation. They then went around gathering evidence and debating how the world could appear the way it appeared to them. They proposed hypotheses, and scratched their heads. They came across problems with their previous view of the world. Issues in their observations and data came up, which made supporting a strictly catastrophist viewpoint untenable. The geology of the world just didn’t want to support their notions of what happened. They were able to use their brains to tease out theories and use their eyes to observe how things were being formed then. They could see beaches at work, sandbars change, rivers erode. While they couldn’t see mountains forming, there were active volcanoes they could study. They noticed patterns, similarities between rocks in differing locations, and clues in rocks that point to processes at work today. Fossils were a big hit. They began to question the idea that the earth was static and unchanging, an idea they got from the bible.

Because they could not observe how everything formed they had to propose theories to ask how some things might have happened. Certain rocks types cannot be observed to be in the process of forming. They may no longer be forming, forming somewhere we can not observe, or they are in the process of forming but this is taking so long it can not be discerned. We only have a limited lifespan after all. They came to hold a more rational viewpoint on the processes that mold and create the land we see. They began to realize, the processes we see today must have been the processes that happened yesterday, and will be the processes we will see tomorrow. They continued to work together to uncover more knowledge and strengthen or throw away old ideas. All throughout this process they tested their hypotheses and theories, or someone tested it for them.

All of this present science we have today has been built upon the observations, data, tests and retests and theories of a multitude of people working to expand our knowledge of the world we live in, throughout time. Science works because it isn’t exclusionary. Anyone can do it if they have the inclination. All it requires is hard work, basic intelligence, a common methodology, and honesty. It takes hard work to find and read what others have proposed, to go around observing the tops of mountains, or working in the lab. Most humans have the basic intelligence required. A common methodology is needed for others to understand and test your ideas. If you are not honest to yourself and others, your ideas are likely to be invalid or untestable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:19 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:07 PM DBlevins has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:22 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 160 of 303 (242922)
09-13-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by nwr
09-13-2005 10:59 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen

It is nasty when you make allegations regarding the intentions of scientists based on your interpretation of the Bible. An assessment of a scientist's intentions must be based on that scientist's own interpretation.

Yes it is true that I do not bind myself by political correctness or theological liberal correctness either, but if God did author the Bible, so that it is to be believed as written, which was held by most Europeans until quite recently, it is simple fact and not nasty at all to say that affirming anything that denies His word is a denial of God.

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 10:59 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 11:13 AM Faith has responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1969 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 161 of 303 (242924)
09-13-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:29 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
How do we know gravity will remain the same today as it was yesterday?

Can we see, smell, taste or hear gravity? Or just feel its effects?

If we are unable to see, smell, taste, or hear gravity but can feel its effects, what is it? If we don't know what gravity is made of, are Einstein's theories invalid? How do we observe what we can't see?

How can we test what we can't see?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:46 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 162 of 303 (242925)
09-13-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Yes it is true that I do not bind myself by political correctness or theological liberal correctness either, but if God did author the Bible, so that it is to be believed as written, which was held by most Europeans until quite recently, it is simple fact and not nasty at all to say that affirming anything that denies His word is a denial of God.

The issue has nothing to do with political correctness, not with "theological liberal correctness". I can only conclude that you are using these to evade responsibility for your erroneous allegations about the intentions of scientists.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:39 AM nwr has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 163 of 303 (242935)
09-13-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PaulK
09-13-2005 10:51 AM


Re: No Catch 22
Thanks for confirming that my impression was correct.

I really just want it acknowledged that the EvC demand that the Bible be subject to science makes genuine debate impossible.

Well you aren't going to get that acknowledgement because it isn't true.

I should have been more precise -- or you should have known what I meant by now. It makes genuine debate about the YEC views of science impossible, not all debate. Yes you can still debate the Bible's validity itself.

For a start you wouldn't be saying that if the scientific evidence actually supported your interpretation of the Bible. If you need to appeal to the Bible over the scientific evidence it's because they show different things.

That is correct. That is why there is a debate at all. However I don't believe it's about evidence as much as that the evidence is simply interpreted within the evolutionistic and OE suppositions that deny the Bible. In any case my presupposition is that the Bible is God's word, that it is to be read as written, including Genesis, and that therefore the Flood did happen, and if these assumptions are excluded from debate about these very questions, this is as good as denying YECs the right to hold them, and that's stacking the deck, and that makes debate impossible. And I mean REALLY impossible, not just difficult. All the complaints against YEC methods here are fundamentally about our believing these things.

You could also legitimately debate which side the physical evidence supported. YOU don't have to accept it as more authoritative than your beliefs, even if others do. But equally you would not be free to introduce your theological views as an argument into such a thread - because they are not relevant.

I have participated to some extent in those debates and yes those things can be debated if a YEC wants to engage in it, but I consider questions about physical evidence irrelevant myself.

Or you could take part in theological debates on the nature and purpose of the Bible (there ARE views - even within Christianity - other than yours).

I've participated in a few of those also, but in the end I don't see the point. I know what I believe and why I believe it and it's not for lack of exposure to other views, and I hate to see the way the Bible gets picked apart by people who don't believe it as written.

No, legitimate debate is possible BECAUSE you can't insist that your views are accepted automatically.

But that means that YECs cannot and should not participate here because what IS accepted automatically is the assumptions of our opponents -- that our beliefs are subject to science -- and that is stacking the deck. In fact your beliefs should be subject to God's word, but if that premise is disallowed so must yours be, all of which makes debate a completely nonsensical notion. I refuse to submit to the assumptions of EvC, that science trumps all else, and that God Himself must yield to this idol god Science, and that's all this really comes down to, and I think all YECs should refuse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 10:51 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 12:20 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 164 of 303 (242938)
09-13-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by nwr
09-13-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Obviously we are miscommunicating and should end this conversation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 11:13 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 12:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32135
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 165 of 303 (242940)
09-13-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by DBlevins
09-13-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen

Huh? Excuse me but I don't get your point. Obviously gravity can be tested and has been tested.

We know that gravity will be the same tomorrow because we know the universe operates by laws and not whim. And this is because most of Western empirical science started from the Bible's recognition of a law-bound Nature made by a rational orderly God. We may not know exactly WHAT gravity is but as long as we can measure it and predict it we have a testable science. We'd never have had a science of any great value without the revelation of the God who runs things by Law. Without that faith in the lawful orderly behavior of the physical world everything would be in doubt.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-13-2005 11:48 AM

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:34 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by DBlevins, posted 09-13-2005 11:12 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rahvin, posted 09-13-2005 12:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
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