No, Faith, the problem is that one group seeks supernatural explanations for phenomena while the other group insists on natural explanations. These two approaches to knowledge are utterly irreconcilable.
This is simply not so. Creationists do not EXPLAIN anything as supernatural. This is an evolutionist hallucination. The Flood is explained in purely natural terms. The premise being discussed is that it occurred because God said it did, and that whatever can be known about it from the Bible must be taken into account. You are refusing even to think about what creationists say, just inventing a straw man.
That is why the moderators of this board often must eschew the usual rules of debate, because in the debates that take place here we are forced to accept such things as virgin births, global floods, fairies in the sky, demons in the ground, etc. etc. as plausible.
This is absolutely false. Nobody has ever required anyone to accept any of these things in a debate here. But they could be proposed as premises and the opponent required to accept them for a given debate. What normally happens is that YECs must not only defend HOW the Flood happened but that it happened at all because that's the EvC premise which prevails here and is imposed on YECs automatically. It's ridiculous to deny it.
Debate is usually based on logic and evidence, but in this case we are forced to give logic equal weight with illogic and evidence equal weight with fairy tales.
Sure, you can stack the deck by poisoning the well too, that is, by calling your opponent's premise that God has spoken a mere fairy tale. There's no need to debate anything then of course, as the EvC assumptions prevail. That's what I'm talking about.
In a real debate, no one ever has to agree to accept an opponent's premise.
No, what happens is that YECs HAVE to accept the EvC's premises, they don't bother to ask us to agree to them.
That's what makes a debate a debate, for crying out loud! In a real debate, if the opponent poses a premise, the proponent is free to challenge the premise.
That IS what happens at EvC, certainly. If that's what you want, as clearly it is, don't expect YECs to bother to continue in the so-called debate for long.
It is then incumbent upon the opponent to present evidence and/or reasoned logic to support his or her premise. In a real debate, such evidence and/or logic cannot appeal to non-evidence-based notions of what the supernatural world might be like.
This has simply never occurred. Evidence and logic have been amply provided by creationists here but the evo side has this strange inability to recognize real evidence when it doesn't support their assumptions. Funny how that goes.
Re: Proposed "Great Debate" - Faith's God vs. Moose's God
Proposed topic: The story of the creation can be learned by studying the created Moose
I'll give it some thought but it's probably not a good time for the rigors of a Great Debate. Wait until after the holidays. Right now I have time to shoot off an answer as it occurs to me here and there, but not to concentrate on a particular designated topic.
The Flood is a parable and an absolute lesson in morality...whether or not is was a literal event is irrelevant
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, everybody just wants to assert their own pet assumption and ignore the topic here which is about how the YEC premise always gets overridden by the EvC premises. So that's your premise and I disagree with it. What now?
the problem is that the creationist's premise is that they dismiss evolution out of hand. their premise is, as faith put it, that their reading of the word of god trumps all evidence, science, logic, reason, and other belief.
My, how difficult it is for an evo to follow simple logic. The word of God DOES trump all contradictions of course. Truly, this ought to be obvious and indisputable. God made it all, God knows what it's all about, so true science, logic and reason are on the side of God's word. Logically this is impeccable reasoning. How can you deny it?
So they expect to be held to a double standard: we are expected to accept their premise of "evolution's premise is unacceptable."
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that at present evolution's premise is accepted a priori and enforced with rigor shall we say, and the YEC's denied a priori. I'm merely pointing this out and suggesting that fairness requires that the YEC's be given equal time. Or not even equal time. ANY time at all would be an improvement on the fairness scale.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 12:42 PM
But the so-called "word of god" is, studied dispassionately, nothing more than a fairy tale. You can no more find hard evidence to support the word of god than you can the word of the Brothers Grimm.
Fascinating how logic-challenged you all are. This is YOUR premise, and it opposes mine. God's word does not need support, it is the PREMISE, get it? We reason FROM God's word, and all things follow from it. Evos here always dispute God's word in the science debates, and that's OK for debate purposes too, as long as it's up front, but when it is the only acceptable position, as it is at EvC, it amounts to stacking the deck. The Flood is taken for granted by YECs and here and there it would only be fair -- if you have any pretense to fair debate -- to accept this premise. But as I've also said, I know this is simply impossible at EvC, it would violate too many of your own assumptions you are just as unwilling to give up as a YEC is to give up the Flood.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 12:47 PM
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.
The word of God DOES trump all contradictions of course. Truly, this ought to be obvious and indisputable. God made it all, God knows what it's all about, so true science, logic and reason are on the side of God's word. Logically this is impeccable reasoning. How can you deny it?
Because it's a premise that there's no reason to accept. Thus, you should not be surprised to find that people do no accept it.
You don't simply get to present premises and expect them to be accepted in the absence of support; neither do we. A premise is the basis of an argument but it's not something that you just get to demand acceptence for, just because you presented it.
I mean, any statement can be a premise, so that'd be a pretty convinient way to short-circuit a debate, don't you think? Just present your conclusion as a premise and then claim it was beyond challenge because all premises must be accepted?
By refusing to recognize the YEC premise you do indeed demand that I accept the evo premise.
Well, hey, here's a hell of an idea. Let's each support our premises with argumentation. We could even do this over the internet, at a website that lets us post text and links in sequential form, organized by topic into "threads." Even better we could have a set of volunteers from both sides - maybe you could even be one - who agree to enforce a limited set of rules about civility and form so that the discussion stays on topic and stays civil. Maybe we could organize the site into different topics, like "Is it science?" or "Cosmology".