YEC approaches to empirical investigation

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.

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

quote:

---

It is not that YECs "have some data and a known conclusion" and "work at determining what's in between." When it comes to the Flood, I think a better comparison would be with the archaeological approach to finding where an ancient city is buried.

​

That is, we KNOW there was a worldwide Flood from an ancient document just as an archaeologist may know from ancient documents that there was once a city in a certain place and set out to find it. The physical clues in the document may be frustratingly sparse and the area very broad where the city's ruins might most likely be found, but there is no doubt it existed and theoretically could be found.

---

I have to say that this comparison is misleading both as it relates to archaeology and to YEC flood beliefs.Firstly an archaeologist would not assume that an ancient docuemnt would be completely inerrant. For instance if the city was described as implausibly large he would not assume that that aspect was literally true. Thus if YECs were acting like archaeologists they would not assume anything more than a large localised flood need have happened.Secondly YECs routinely invoke the flood to "explain" the geological record and especially the fossil record. There is nothing in the idea of the flood per se which requires this - rather it is the necessity to explain away the evidence of geology and paleontology that contradicts YEC beliefs.The claim to "know" that there was a flood is also strictly speaking false - "strongly believe" would be more correct.And I must add that full discussion of the interpretation of the data does not require the assumption that Noah's Flood actually happened. If that question is relevant to the debate then ruling out the opposing position simply biases the debate in the favour of YECs. If it is not relevant then the question should not arise.

quote:

---

Irrelevant as usual PaulK. What archeologists assume about an ancient text or the particulars about any supposed city, have nothing whatever to do with the fact that YECs take the Bible as inerrant.

---

It seems that you agree that your comparison was misleading and thus my points were not only relevant - they were true.

quote:

---

The analogy I made does not concern the premise of inerrancy but the conduct of the inquiry from that point, whatever the premise is. My point was that the model of archaeology is more descriptive of YEC methodology than Ben's model of forensics and that remains true.

---

And if that was your point, then the differences ARE relevant.

quote:

---

Those who truly know the God of the Bible DO KNOW that the flood occurred and that is not for you to judge. Argue it on threads for the purpose if you like where YECs are free to ignore you.

---

If you want to get nasty about it I could simply insist that you back up your claim - as the rules of this forum allow. And we both know that you can't.

quote:

---

And I already acknowledged many times in this argument that a genuine acceptance of the YEC premise would indeed weight the argument on the YEC side and this is why time after time I said that this debate is impossible if conducted fairly.

---

I don't know about that - I can't remember any such acknowledgments. I do know that you've often demanded acceptance of YEC presuppositions - as you did above - so your statement is an admission that you were intnetionally trying to rig the debate.And most importantly of all you have yet to articulate any good reason why there is any need to accept YEC presuppositiona at all. And that point is the one point in my psot that you do not address.

quote:

---

If the true God said it, that IS empirical

---

Strictly speaking, no.But if the true God really did say it - and intneded it to be interpeted literally then that owuld be a good reaon for beleiving it.
If your position relies on that claim then that is what you should be arguing for. Why don't you start a new topic to make your case ?

quote:

---

...the topic here which is about how the YEC premise always gets overridden by the EvC premises

---

By which you mean that since you are not prepared to argue for your religious preuppositions you demand that they should simply be accepted.Sorry, but the fact that you don't want to discuss something is not a good reason for anybody else to accept it. And your position that there cannot be a real debate is really no more than a refusal to debate on your part.