Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 5:59 AM
23 online now:
Jon (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
21Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 196 of 303 (243082)
09-13-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Jazzns
09-12-2005 6:17 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
To continue answering your post.

You misspoke in that post, saying first the opposite of what you meant, that bending occurs BEFORE lithification, which was confusing but I think I've figured it out.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=117&m=150#150 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=117&m=150#150">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=117&m=150#150

You haven't shown the stress marks caused by the buckling in the Appalachians that you say are there when rock is bent or otherwise stretched, only in other places, you are merely asserting that such folding occurred in hard rock. Why not show the stress marks as you did in the other examples?

Well that is why I was telling you that the rule is bent rocks are bent before lithification. If you need specific references for strain in the Appalachians then here is a few that I was able to dig up.

So I concede the point about strain after lithification. It doesn't matter. HOWEVER, the site you linked says nothing about that, merely documents the signs of strain in the Appalachians, so I'm taking your word for it that these are post-lithification indicators. Also if the Figures are supposed to be visible, they aren't on my computer. Also, there is too much higher math there to be of use to me beyond the fact that it says that there are these indicators of strain in the Appalachians.

Should be enough to convince you I hope. When rocks deform they always do so lithified. Once again, fact. ...It is the rare occurrence that deformation happens to unlithified sediment. So rare that I try as I might I cannot even find an example on the internet of it happening. Maybe rox or someone can help with a good example of what it looks like when unlithified rock is put under tectonic stress. I can tell you one thing, it is not going to look like you neat syncline/anticlines of your Appalachian example.

Fine.

Did YOU look at the whole page? Do you understand what a syncline is and how they form? If you don't then please ask because it seeming more and more like you really have no idea how to interpret geologic information. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about syncline formation. What is nice about that is their method of formation is entirely factual so once again we will be talking about facts rather than theory. No room to argue.

I read the page. I am not interested in more detailed information at this point.

It is also a fact that the Appalachians HAVE BEEN eroded enormously from their original folded configuration, to judge by the link I gave, where it appears you only glanced at the road cut illustration and didn't see the diagrams of how the area was eroded.
==========
I saw it just fine. I just don't know what the big deal is. That still doesn't address why the Appalacians "beat" the Rockies in terms of erosion given that the Rockies today are eroding faster than the Appalacians.

I think I've said why quite clearly in my previous post -- and many times before that. The more erodable surfaces have BEEN eroded, past tense, as shown on the diagrams, and now the less erodable surfaces are exposed. That plus the factors of lower profile etc explain the slower erosion of the Appalachians NOW.

if the Appalacians started out with more erosional potential than the Rockies then why did it continue as it has rather than slow down once it was eroded enough to reach the same potential as the Rockies.

Not following you. Seems to me they NOW lack the exposure that the Rockies have, and the more highly erodable surfaces have already been eroded. Why isn't this a sufficient possible explanation?

You have a race condition here that is impossible. Even if it rained 24/7 on teh Appalachians and there was no wind or rain at all on the Rockies you would still be hard pressed to erode millions of tons of granite and other types of rock over a couple thousand years since their formation.

I have the impression from the diagrams at the link that the erodable rocks have BEEN eroded down to the syncline configuration, and these highly erodable rocks aren't granite. The erosion slows where granite and other less erodable rocks are the most exposed surface.

One thing is for sure. You are better off proposing some kind of other outrageous, mid/post flood craziness for why those two ranges look the way they do in comparision because the alternative that the Appalachians simply eroded faster post flood is a no go.

You haven't convinced me of that. In fact you haven't even addressed what I've actually said.

Lets remember your initial ignorance of the facts with regards to erosion and deformation:

Faith previously writes:
Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion.

Emphasis by me.

And your point is? You don't give the context of this quote and in dealing with four or five posters I'm not inclined to look such things up, but IIRC you challenged me to explain where the sediments that formed the strata CAME FROM. I came up with an explanation and I have no clue to what your objection to it is from what you have said here.

I am still digging in the archives for that first mutation thread you were in.

It had something like "natural limits" in the title, if it's the one I'm thinking of, and you should be able to find it easily by going to the list of posts under my name back to March or thereabouts.

You are not the first and will not be the last. The primary deficit with nearly all of your arguments the moment you try you hand at empiricism is a basic lack of knowledge of the facts. This is not just a you thing. This is a YEC thing. Every single time. Every single article on every single YEC propaganda site. Every single debate with a Hovind or a Gish. If it is not ignorance it is deception. You get a free pass here because the posters and the mods assume it is the former.

This is not a stab. We have discussed this before in my "Why Won't Creationists Learn" thread. You know you lack, yet you do nothing. SO none of this should be a suprise or offensive to you.

First, I have, I believe, shown that what you are calling facts are sometimes not facts but interpretations of the facts and yes YECs dispute most evolutionist interpretations. Second, most YECs who come here are not scientists. Third, while superficially one would expect that this would be a great place to learn some science, in fact there's something about the set-up that makes that extremely difficult, probably the hostility for starters. And fourth, I've learned a LOT about geology since I've been here, and I've spent HOURS researching various questions online. Just one particular, very specific, very limited, problem can take up hours of research -- the Coconino in the Grand Canyon for instance -- and since a YEC has to do the extra work of learning plus translating information from Evospeak into ordinary English it is a doubly daunting task. THEN, on top of that, the constant refrain that I'm unwilling to learn is so unfair that it rather erodes my enthusiasm for learning more.

All I am saying is that all this fuss over weather or not you should participate in IRH's thread is rediculous. I think your ban on the science forums should be lifted. I think you should be able to say whatever you want. You position is complete valid as a belief and especially since you have already stated that you DON'T want the school system changed or any other kind of political indoctrination. I am not here to change your mind. I have already decided that that is impossible. BY all means, show us what you got in IRH's thread.

We'll see if it is an approach I can relate to at all. I can't tell yet.

All this suspension and validity of reasoning is pure nonesense. It has no bearning on the legitimacy or impression of your debate.

Can't figure out what you are saying here, but maybe it's not important.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Jazzns, posted 09-12-2005 6:17 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2005 11:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 197 of 303 (243085)
09-13-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
09-13-2005 5:37 PM


Re: No Catch 22
A YEC would only be suspended for using theological arguments in the science forums- whcih are restricted to scientific arguments.

SO sorry to say, but I've been warned AND suspended for stating my Biblical premises in NON-science forums. And that thread about the Southwest was closed in my face for the same reason, though it was not a science forum. It simply BECAME one because I dared to discuss scientific questions from my Biblical presuppositions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 5:37 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 7:14 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31081
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 198 of 303 (243089)
09-13-2005 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
09-13-2005 7:05 PM


Re: No Catch 22
SO sorry to say, but I've been warned AND suspended for stating my Biblical premises in NON-science forums.

Please provide evidence that is true.

And that thread about the Southwest was closed in my face for the same reason,...

Please provide evidence that was the reason.

You keep whining and crying about how you're mistreated. Now let's see if you can back them up.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:26 PM jar has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 199 of 303 (243093)
09-13-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by PaulK
09-13-2005 5:37 PM


Re: No Catch 22
A YEC would only be suspended for using theological arguments in the science forums- whcih are restricted to scientific arguments. Sinxe there are no forums where science is forbidden ...

There is a strong opinion that science SHOULD be forbidden on the non-science side of the board and it has resulted in my suspension at least once and a great deal of upbraiding and complaining about it otherwise.

Sinxe there are no forums where science is forbidden your argument amounts to saying that if creationists can be suspended for breaking the rules then other people should be suspended even if they follow the rules.

Please get the point that it is the RULES themselves that stack the deck. I don't know how I can possibly make it much clearer than I have.

If Ben's proposal comes off then you could get your wish - but only on that forum.

I haven't been following Ben's proposal. Too involved in answering you and Jazz and others.

But I do not see the need for another forum. The Theological Creationism and ID forum was created to deal with this very problem. The problem is that I have no interest in using it because the fundamental problem has continued in spite of its existence, which is the neverending complaint by the science side that science must not be allowed on the non-science side as it only gives an unfair license to creationists to pursue unscientific reasoning by their standards. Until this attitude is conclusively dealt with, no amount of new forums is going to address the real problem.

However, perhaps Ben's proposal deals with this in some way.

If YEC presuppositions are up for debate in every debate, but the scientific presupposition is not up for debate, debate is not possible for YECs, and obviously debate is impossible anyway as there is nothing left to debate but whether the Bible is to be subject to science or science subject to the Biblical God.

Of course that isn't the case - it is, however, the mirror image of what you are asking for. You DON'T discuss your presuppositions - you discuss scientific matters and want to introduce your presupposiitosn to THOSE discussions.

I was content to keep them out of those discussions until it dawned on me that it doesn't matter if I refer to them or don't refer to them, they are what guides my thinking, and since that is the case the evolutionist side is not going to leave me alone about it no matter what. Therefore I'm bringing it up front, and I really do believe that because of the insistence that such presuppositions be disqualified from science discussions a priori, fair debate is rendered impossible. So, yes, that IS what I want. I want the freedom to use my own Biblical premises freely in ANY thread with impunity. Otherwise debate is a fraud.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 5:37 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 10:53 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 200 of 303 (243094)
09-13-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by jar
09-13-2005 7:14 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I'm stating simple facts quite unemotionally. There is no whining or crying involved. My task isn't to make EvC comfy for me only, but to address this perennial problem of why creationists are always getting the boot here.

I'm surprised you would ask me to document something so unambiguous as the reasons for that thread's being closed and for my suspension, which makes it appear that maybe all you are doing is giving me make-work as if I weren't already busy enough. However, I can easily prove the point if I can find the relevant posts, and that will take some time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 7:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 7:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31081
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 201 of 303 (243096)
09-13-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Faith
09-13-2005 7:26 PM


So once again no support.
Faith, you have been specifically asked to support your allegation. Please do so or post that you were incorrect.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 303 (243097)
09-13-2005 7:30 PM


Early witching hour
Jar and Faith, you can take your discussion what has been fair / unfair to the "General..." thread linked below.

Others... we've gotten way off topic, my warning did no good, and I don't see things will get back on track. Any interesting discussions, please find other, more appropriate threads to continue them in.

If somebody disagrees with my assessment of the thread, please follow the "Considerations..." link below.

Thanks.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 203 of 303 (243303)
09-14-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
09-13-2005 7:19 PM


Re: No Catch 22
I think you are confusing the idea that scientific discussions should be placed on the science forums with the idea that science should be banned altogether from the non-science fora. The opinion you refer to is the first, not the second.

quote:

Please get the point that it is the RULES themselves that stack the deck. I don't know how I can possibly make it much clearer than I have.

It is clear that you ASSERT that. But it is also clear that your idea of "fairness" is equivalent to making an overriding rule that YECs must always win. That isn't fair.

quote:

Therefore I'm bringing it up front, and I really do believe that because of the insistence that such presuppositions be disqualified from science discussions a priori, fair debate is rendered impossible. So, yes, that IS what I want. I want the freedom to use my own Biblical premises freely in ANY thread with impunity. Otherwise debate is a fraud.

a) Since your presuppsitions are blatantly unscientific they are rightly banned from the science forums. THis does not ban fair debate, it simply restricts that debate to the actual science. If YEC can't compete on that ground then that is because the scientiifc evidence is against YEC. i.e. your problem is that the rules ARE fair.

b) You claim that debate is a fraud unless YEC is presumed to be true.
That is manipulation worthy of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. You call genuine debate a fraid and demand that it is replaced by a fake "debate" where the rules are so grossly bent in your favour that no YECs need bother turning up. If you want that, go to a YEC board - I'm sure that you can find one that is so disgustingly biased.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 7:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 1:47 PM PaulK has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2110 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 204 of 303 (243305)
09-14-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Faith
09-13-2005 6:52 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
Not following you. Seems to me they NOW lack the exposure that the Rockies have, and the more highly erodable surfaces have already been eroded. Why isn't this a sufficient possible explanation?

In order to keep this sub-thread on topic I will just say that the situation you are describing is impossible. The Appalachians cannnot have "beat" the Rockies in an erosion race to the extent that we see them today and part of that fact is even supported by the link you keep referring to. If you would like to start a thread about this I will join you there.

I have the impression from the diagrams at the link that the erodable rocks have BEEN eroded down to the syncline configuration, and these highly erodable rocks aren't granite. The erosion slows where granite and other less erodable rocks are the most exposed surface.

The whole point of me bringing up the granite example in this thread was to point out that when it was first brought up you seemed to dismiss it as of little importance. From this side of the fence it looks as though you either don't know what the fundamental difference is between granite and other rocks or you didn't understand why it was important to the discussion at hand. Again, we won't get into that here becuase the thread where that discussion took place is closed but feel free to ask for clarification elsewhere with regards to the specifics of granite and how it affects the erosion argument. For the purposes of this thread it is simply one of a list of failures with regards to empiricism.

You haven't convinced me of that. In fact you haven't even addressed what I've actually said.

If you are going to participate in the debate then saying things like this is pure hubris. Why can't it be simply that you don't understand what I am talking about? Especially since you have both demonstrated and admitted ignornace with regards to these issues in both this post and in the past. Yet here you strongly proclaim that I simply haven't addressed what you have said. That is ALL we are talking about; what you say, why you say it, and why it is not empricial.


Faith previously writes:

Gotcha. Not the layers just the depostion of the layers. OK. Yes they had to come from somewhere and since the actual evidence shows that they were deposited quite rapidly and folded pretty soon after as previously discussed, we can figure that this occurred with the Flood's dissolving and battering of the pre-diluvian world, both undersea and on land, then either precipitating out or depositing in currents ior waves the separated out sediments. THEN the layers change into rock and are further eroded and/or uplifted. Sometimes more layers are laid down after the erosion.

And your point is? You don't give the context of this quote and in dealing with four or five posters I'm not inclined to look such things up, but IIRC you challenged me to explain where the sediments that formed the strata CAME FROM. I came up with an explanation and I have no clue to what your objection to it is from what you have said here.

The quote dosen't need context as it incorrect on the facts all by itself. This quote was the original one that motivated my post to you about the strain because it is obvious by this quote, by itself, that you did not understand that sediments must be lithified prior to deformation. Here you have deposition, deformation, then lithification. That is backwards and contrary to fact for the extrodinarily vast majority of all geologic formations.

First, I have, I believe, shown that what you are calling facts are sometimes not facts but interpretations of the facts and yes YECs dispute most evolutionist interpretations.

You will have to explicitly point out where you have done this because it most certainly has not been in this thread with regards to the facts I have been using as examples. In other areas such as our discussion about depositional environments I will give you that that is an interpretive tool. That is my whole point in this thread is simply that you have not done what you just claimed. Some things that you lable as interpretation are facts and YECs in general seem to have trouble distinguishing the two. There is fact and then there is theory. You can argue the theory all day long with whatever presumptions you like but you cannot argue the facts. My original list of facts and the new ones we have discovered in this discussion are explicit miscues of fact that are prevalent in YECism.

Second, most YECs who come here are not scientists.

Nor am I. I just make sure that when I say something factual that I can verify it. You and other YECs who have posted here don't seem constrained by any such standard.

Third, while superficially one would expect that this would be a great place to learn some science, in fact there's something about the set-up that makes that extremely difficult, probably the hostility for starters.

The hostility is a total product of the specific poster and the specific thread. I have mentioned TheLiteralist as a good example of someone who came in here with YEC beliefs yet a bit of humbleness with regards to his lack of knowledge. In this initial threads he participated in there was a lot of questions that many were happy to answer that helped him raise much more interesting objections to things. Sure he got SOME flak but that is going to be partially true for any YEC who gets a brand new start here without any of the history that some of us have.

And fourth, I've learned a LOT about geology since I've been here, and I've spent HOURS researching various questions online. Just one particular, very specific, very limited, problem can take up hours of research -- the Coconino in the Grand Canyon for instance -- and since a YEC has to do the extra work of learning plus translating information from Evospeak into ordinary English it is a doubly daunting task. THEN, on top of that, the constant refrain that I'm unwilling to learn is so unfair that it rather erodes my enthusiasm for learning more.

Maybe I should have stated it differently. It may not be that you are unwilling to learn but when you state things as facts that are explicitly not facts it sure looks that way to me at least. It could be as simple as just changing the way you present you ideas. Instead of:

"The obviously rapidly deposited layers deformed and then changed into rock."

can become.

"Why couldn't the sediment have been deposited rapidly, deformed, and then changed into rock?"

One of them is an empiric investigation, the other is a strike out on the facts.

After that my presentation of the strain you would have added that knowledge to your toolset. It may not completely solve the issue of the timing of it all but at least the order, which is a fact, would no longer be an issue. We need to start the debate with the same set of facts or all it does is become....well....the mess that most of those threads ended up as. Once we know that things happen deposition->lithification->deformation we can then have a more meaningful discussion about how long that took.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 6:52 PM Faith has not yet responded

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 205 of 303 (243328)
09-14-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Ben!
09-13-2005 3:22 PM


Ben writes:

I think there's a good chance it leads to better methodology.

A methodology which doesn't compensate for confirmation bias isn't a better methodology than science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Ben!, posted 09-13-2005 3:22 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:06 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1820 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 206 of 303 (243329)
09-14-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by DominionSeraph
09-14-2005 1:00 PM


Ah, NOW I understand your "confirmation bias" comment.

Yes, I totally agree. I've tried to outline here (somewhere) that I don't think the methodology used by YECs is better than science. I've tried to state explicitly, it's MUCH WORSE. Confirmation bias is one reason.

The point of the thread is to say, it's the ONLY method available to them. The scientific method is out for them. With that in mind, let's really analyze the method available, see the weak points, see where people often make mistakes, and let's try to move forward with an understanding of it. YEC investigation is not science, but it still can use empirical methodology.

The only post I can find that's related is post 47. But I'm not looking very hard...

Anyway, I think it's an excellent point about the methodology. It's prone to confirmation bias.

I think there's a good chance it leads to better methodology.

What I meant is that, by critically examining and explicitly allowing the methodology YECs must use here at EvC, I think it leads to better methodology by YECs. Not compared to scientists, but compared to ... themselves.

Hope that clears things up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 1:00 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 1:35 PM Ben! has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2953 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 207 of 303 (243342)
09-14-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Ben!
09-14-2005 1:06 PM


Ben writes:

The point of the thread is to say, it's the ONLY method available to them. The scientific method is out for them. With that in mind, let's really analyze the method available, see the weak points, see where people often make mistakes, and let's try to move forward with an understanding of it.

I already have.
They use a method that doesn't work, so I ignore them unless they assert/imply that their method does work.

As long as they say, "The Earth is young, but I'm talking out of my ass here," I'm fine with it.

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-14-2005 01:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:06 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:59 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32195
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 208 of 303 (243343)
09-14-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
09-14-2005 10:53 AM


Re: No Catch 22
b) You claim that debate is a fraud unless YEC is presumed to be true.

No, I claim that debate is a fraud because the YEC presupposition is precluded by the science presupposition. I'm aware that you can't allow the YEC presupposition because it precludes the science presupposition as well, that is, it works both ways, the conflict is a genuine conflict. It's merely that at EvC the science rule rules.

That is manipulation worthy of Orwell's Ministry of Truth. You call genuine debate a fraid and demand that it is replaced by a fake "debate" where the rules are so grossly bent in your favour that no YECs need bother turning up. If you want that, go to a YEC board - I'm sure that you can find one that is so disgustingly biased.

No, I am not asking that the YEC presupposition replace the science presupposition as either way is unfair to the other side. What I'm saying is that this is an unresolvable conflict which at the moment is stacked against YECs and that there is no way out of it. Debate is simply impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 10:53 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 2:10 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1820 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 209 of 303 (243347)
09-14-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by DominionSeraph
09-14-2005 1:35 PM


I already have.
They use a method that doesn't work, so I ignore them unless they assert/imply that their method does work.

Can you suggest another methodology that would work better for this problem? I'd be interested to hear other ideas.

If so, I would appreciate if you can be very specific about how it is to be applied to YEC (maybe give an example?), and also why you think it's a better methodology for this problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 1:35 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 3:01 PM Ben! has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15226
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 210 of 303 (243350)
09-14-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
09-14-2005 1:47 PM


Re: No Catch 22
According to your arguments on the other thread the YEC presupposiiton DOESN'T preclude the suppositions of science. There can ONLY be a conflict if YEC is NOT scientifically defensible, even in principle. Your caims in the two threads are not truly compatible.

The YEC presupposition is not allowed because it amounts to simply assuming you are right. It kills debate by ruling in your favour THAT is why it is not allowed. Since there is no equivalent presupposition on the other side it is clear that your claims are simply false. The ruels are not stakced against you - they just aren't grossly stacked in your favour in the way you demand.u


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 1:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019