Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

I was reading the thread YEC approaches to empirical investigation http://EvC Forum: YEC approaches to empirical investigation -->EvC Forum: YEC approaches to empirical investigation and got more and more convinced of the absurdity of the whole discussion...To give an example of Faith's (YEC) reasoning, let's take a quote about Genesis: As some (even Faith herself) already pointed out there, there doesn't seem to be anything left to debate on EvC if you start from that premise. But while I was reading some posts in the thread, it struck me that there does not even seem to be any reason for literalists like her to engage in these debates! Why do they even bother? Is this really a war they want to fight in?To understand this, you have to consider the consequences of the YEC cornerstones; If one opts for a stricly literal interpretation of the Bible and Genesis, there seems to be only one really consistent approach:Whatever IS written, should be taken absolutely literally, with no interpretation involved (for as much as this is possible anyway, but let's just assume). And whatever ISN'T written, should, "by argument of absense" (does that exist? lol), be considered totally irrelevant and of no significance. There is no alternative for the latter, since any discussion about unmentioned (by Genesis) facts, or suggestions for unmentioned mechanisms to link a bunch of divinely revealed facts, can not be anything else but pure speculation. And anyway, if it had any significance, surely God would have written it down unequivocally and explicitly?One would think that a true believer like Faith would recognise this, and wouldn't be bothered to participate in the kind of useless discussion about flood geology, radioactive dating... etc. Discussion that should be irrelevant to them and doesn't get anywhere anyway. Why, if Genesis is divinely inspired and absolute truth (and, I would therefore guess, _complete_), is any additional justification needed? Why lose your time with discussions about such ultimately fallible things as observations?Shouldn't it be easier and more obvious for Faith & Co to consider ToE merely as a help-tool, an artificial framework constructed by fallible humans because of our tendency to see structure in the world? When reading Faith in particular, it seems like she acknowledges that ToE represents a fairly self-consistent and scientifically "useful" framework. The only thing that really seems to bother her is the conflict itself with a literal reading of Genesis. The claim that science would be a 'truth' on the same level as Genesis, or its denial of Genesis. Not so much the fact that ToE framework is used as a tool for further scientific exploration? After all, it is thinkable that ToE could be useful without being 'true' as such. A working hypothesis that could finally be reduced to Literal Genesis given enough time and effort to see through deceiving initial impressions?Really, the more I think about it, the stranger I find it that Faith feels the need to be involved in these discussions at all... Surely, she doesn't have any hope to actually turn some people around, here? Could it, instead, be that her(their) faith is not quite as pure as she(they) would like it to be? And she(they) therefore somehow needs that little bit more, like some extra justification based on a self-reasoned YEC theory?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

All texts have to be interpreted. That's how we read. It's due to the slippery meanings of words.

Completely agree. Interpretation comes (or at least it should) as result of analizing the material of the text especially if that text claims to be "truth". I mean, I aint gona believe any certain text is the word of God just because the text said it. I need proof that leaves no doubt behind and if you dont accept that your source be subject to investigation Im afraid to say you dont have any credibility. It isn't like I can send God an email with a question about what is written in any part of the Bible.

---

Viva Puerto Rico Libre. Colonialism is an international crime

Not God's words. The words of the Bible enter into your head completely free some any sort of personal interpretation, just as they have been translated from language to language flawlessly, with God's meaning completely intact.To even question this is an open assault on the beliefs of the literalists and I wouldn't be suprised if they asked to have you banned for such a breach.

Why? Well, it's a challenge, it's fun to think about these things. Unfortunately it seems there's really no way to avoid the conflicts, that can get pretty intense here. It's taken me a while, oddly enough, to recognize that in fact it's the Biblical premise for the YEC argument that creates the conflict, for ID too I guess, as before it's seemed to me that this premise shouldn't have to become an issue.Turns out it does, as the rules EvC operates by disqualify this premise up front. Trying to work within them doesn't work so they have to be faced as even defeating the purpose of debate altogether. But that's what is being discussed. That's what I've been posting about yesterday and today, trying to be as explicit as possible about why YECs keep getting suspended here, and realizing, clearly for the first time, that the conflict may very well be completely unresolvable.I'm not willing to have the Bible put at the mercy of science and that may mean there ISN'T any way to continue here. Yes, I also know I lose my temper and that's part of the problem for me personally, though I think I'm getting better with God's help, but that is not the essence of the problem, which IS the Biblical premise which is in head-to-head conflict with the science premise of EvC. Which God reigns is what it comes down to. I wish it could become simply fun and informative, but I guess it isn't going to.But I'm sticking it out for now to see where this goes, with Ben working on his vision of YEC methodology and how it may fit in here, with the thread Irish Rock Hound started to allow the YEC view to be expressed freely, and other thoughts on the subject that have come up lately.

Yes, of course the Bible has to be interpreted, as I most recently said here. HOW it is interpreted, the rules for its interpretation, are the issue. A literal interpretation is still an interpretation, but it aims to understand the written text as closely as possible as it was written, or as true to the intention of the text as possible.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 02:11 AM

quote:

---

Yes, of course the Bible has to be interpreted, as I most recently said here. HOW it is interpreted, the rules for its interpretation, are the issue. A literal interpretation is still an interpretation, but it aims to understand the written text as closely as possible as it was written, or as true to the intention of the text as possible.

---

Hey Faith.I'm not quite familiar with your position. What happens when a literal interpretation of the Bible is contradicted by evidence, empirical or historical? I know it's the position of most YEC organizations like AiG and ICR to reject any such inconvenient evidence. Is this sound operating procedure in your opinion? Should Creationism try to use science to support itself, or be faith-based?

We assume the evidence is in error, usually meaning data has been wrongly interpreted, and seek to interpret it in terms that are consistent with Biblical revelation. That's basically the entire work of creationism (at least young earth creationism) it seems to me, working out a consistent framework that accounts for the evidence differently than evolutionism and old earth theory do. What is usually caricatured as "rejecting inconvenient evidence" is really what I say above, the judgment that evidence cannot truthfully refute God's word, and therefore any interpretation that does is wrong, and an interpretation consistent with the Bible is to be sought instead. Sometimes reasonable alternatives are found rather quickly, sometimes they have to be sought laboriously.It's also a mistake to think Creationism is seeking to use science to support itself. This is a common idea but it is false. Creationism CHALLENGES the evolutionistic old-earth premises of today's science, not to support itself but to further truth, knowing that God's word IS truth and anything that contradicts it is false.Faith in the Bible as God's word means faith that everything it says, rightly understood, will necessarily be consistent with all scientific evidence, rightly understood. There is no either/or. God is the author of the Bible and Creation both and there can't be any conflict between the two.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 03:03 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 03:08 AM

You have GOT to stop making profound statements like you speak for all christians. It's the Word of God not the word of faith.

quote:

---

It's also a mistake to think Creationism is seeking to use science to support itself. This is a common idea but it is false. Creationism CHALLENGES the evolutionistic old-earth premises of today's science, not to support itself but to further truth, knowing that God's word IS truth and anything that contradicts it is false.

---

Now this may be true of creationism but Creation science which is what AiG and ICR perform IS trying to use science to support themselves (well pseduo-science).AIG

quote:

---

Mega site on scientific evidence in support of the Genesis creation

---

quote:

---

Billions of years of time, one of the bedrocks of evolutionary thinking, is once again being called into question. This time it will be challenged by a team of scientists.

---

and if they don't "do" science why bother to have lists like this: Bios | Answers in Genesis Or is this just another example where you use "science" to mean flying sponge cake or something entirely different from the rest of us.Don't bother arguing the toss I just didn't want your falsehoods to stand unchallenged to the lurkers.

Again we see that the problem is that you want everyone else to accept your religious beliefs as true.That is not a viable basis for debate. Either you have to be able to successfully argue for your religious beliefs from shared grounds or accept that they are not admissable as arguments.

There are shared grounds. It's called presumption of, or possibly hypothesis of, something which is used as a embarkation point for showing how well the evidence fits the presumption/hypothesis. Uniformatism is a central plank in evolutionary thinking. It can't be demonstrated to have occurred yet ToE in founded on it. The only answer so far in justifying the presumption of uniformatism is "what else can we do if we are to progress?" This can hardly be described as a concrete foundation for subsequent argument. Why should such a monumnetal presumption as a starting point for your case be the sole preserve of you?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Well if you can successfully convince me that God said that there was a worldwide flood, that is resposncible for the fossil record and large parts of the geological record then I suggest that you start up a thread on that topic.But you are badly wrong about uniformitarianism.1) It is not just an assumption - it is checked wherever possible. And we have not fond any significnat variations in the way nature operates within hte lifetime of the Earth.2) Extreme uniformitarianism (i.e. constancy of rate) is a mainstay of YEC arguments for a young Earth.3) Since this uniformitarianism as it actually is used is both a reasonable assumption which you share when it is not inconvenient for you (how often do you take account of the possiblity that, say, the strength of gravity could radically change ?) and is one that could reasonably be disproved if it were false (e.g. the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and astronomical observations indicate no significant change in nuclear decay rates in the past) it doesn't seem a monumental presupposition at all.4) Uniformitarianism doesn't beg the question. That is, it does not logically entail that either side is right. Tnus it can't be automatically rejected as unfair. What Faith wants, on the other hand DOES beg the question because it does logically entail that the YEC view is correct. Thus Faith's demand CAN be reasonably rejected on the grounds that it is grossly unfair.

"lifetime of the earth" is based on uniformist asssumption that the clocks we use to age the earth keep the same time they always have. If the earth was very young then the processes which laid down coal, diamond etc would be very different to the processe which we observe are happening today. If the clock ran much much faster earlier (as the principle of entrophy would indicate they did) then no time for evoltution to occur."No significant variation" is a bootstrap argument only made possible by the presumption of uniformatism as an arbitarily determined starting point. Is extreme uniformatism as valid a presumption as uniformatism? IF not why not? And if so, on what basis do you disallow some presumptions and accept others? Spot the uniformist presumption nested within the comment above... No old earth - no evolution. Uniformatism is an essential foundation for (I'd warrant) many branches of evolutionary science. Chiroptera recently in giving a good thumbnail sketch of the logic behind biological evolution and in doing so said something like "FACT: animals produce more young than are needed for the immediate survival of the species". This may be true today but in inserting this into his argument he was utilising a presumption of uniformatism. That the same situation has always been the case.My question is what is wrong with Faith using undemonstrable presumption in forming her argument when it's okay for you to do so?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

1) Your first response misrepresents my point and raises fallacious objections.2) Extreme uniformitarianism is less valid (for the obvious reason that it assumes more) And even less so when we eithe rknow or have good reasons to beleive that it is false.3)There is no hidden uniformitarianist assumption4) Even if the claim "No old Earth = no evolution" were sustainable (if you speed everything else up, why not evolution ?) your point would still fail because uniformitarianism does not logically entail that the Earth is old and an old Earth does not logically entail evolution.Chiroptera's point is not simply a uniformitarianist assumption - there are good reasons to beleive it to be true. (1 because it is true for ALL extant species and because of the consequences if it were NOT true).

quote:

---

My question is what is wrong with Faith using undemonstrable presumption in forming her argument when it's okay for you to do so?

---

Lets put it more accurately. We are using rationally supportable assumptions which are open to question - all you've got ot od is to provide a rational reason for rejecting them. Those assumptions do not bias the debate and you could equally well use them if it served your cause - indeed your "no old Earth = no Evolution" DOES use the same sort of assumptions.
The assumptions Faith wants to use are not rationally supportable, Faith refuses to allow them to be questioned and they DO grossly bias the debate.And since I've already pointed all this out your question represents an intnetional misrepresentation of the real situation.