Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 300 (262013)
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Moose wants a more specific topic than the one that just closed on YEC methods of argument. But since the very fact that there IS a different YEC methodology was never really acknowledged except by Ben, and otherwise was just denigrated as irrational as usual, nor was anything I had to say about what it is acknowledged but merely argued with from the same old science assumptions, I don't see any other direction to go.
Below is the last post I couldn't post because the thread was closed, by Berberry. It is merely more of the same but at least it may serve to demonstrate what that "same" consists in.
For some reason it is just about impossible to get anyone to stand back and recognize that we are talking about two completely opposed premises or presuppositions and that that is what slants the debate here. The evos continued to argue with my statements about this overview I attempted, and with the YEC presupposition, FROM THEIR OWN presupposition (basically Science Rules as opposed to God Rules), instead of being able to recognize their presupposition itself, their use of it, stand back from it and just SEE the fundamental clash of worldviews for what they are. This is no doubt due to their abiding contempt for the YEC point of view. Kinda puts a crimp in objectivity dontcha know.
This kind of objective distance is difficult to achieve of course, for all on both sides of the divide, but that was the aim of that thread and any continuation of it will have the same aim and probably the same problems, and I don't see how to focus it any more clearly myself.
Anyway, here is my last post on the subject there, which is saying the same thing again in answer TO the same-thing-again from the other side:
Evidence, Faith, evidence!
Nope. To demand evidence is simply to demand that I submit to the very presupposition I'm saying is a contradiction with my own presupposition, typical at EvC but exactly what I'm challenging. The validation of a revelation from God does not depend upon evidence but upon having the "ears to hear" and believe what is written. You are again merely asserting your presupposition against mine. You demand evidence as part of the science presupposition that runs EvC. Nope, God's revelation needs no evidence.
Evidence only enters in on matters God has not revealed, and that includes among other things all the WAYS the Flood may have occurred and left signs of its occurrence. THAT is where actual science begins for a YEC.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 02:18 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:00 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2005 2:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by BuckeyeChris, posted 11-21-2005 5:12 PM Faith has replied
 Message 12 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 5:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 13 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 5:42 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM Faith has replied
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2005 10:48 AM Faith has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 300 (262017)
11-21-2005 2:24 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 300 (262022)
11-21-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


THE esential point?
As the non-admin mode quoted in a POTM nomination:
Faith writes:
I don't need to support what God said. What God said trumps all challenges of any sort.
Admins, I think we need to consider and process this PNT slowly and carefully, otherwise it's sure to be nothing more than a continuation of the later part of the YEC approaches to empirical investigation topic.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
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
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 3:02 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 300 (262028)
11-21-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus
11-21-2005 2:34 PM


Re: THE esential point?
Hilarious. Of course you nominated one of the posts for a POTM that did nothing but reiterate the very presupposition I'm trying to point out is the deck-stacking element. Oh well, that's EvC fer ya.
Yes indeed consider it very very carefully. This topic ain't gonna happen. Nobody understands what it's about.
Hilarious.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2005 2:34 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminRandman, posted 11-21-2005 3:52 PM Faith has not replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 300 (262043)
11-21-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
11-21-2005 3:02 PM


Re: THE esential point?
Faith, I am too busy to look at anything today, but I will review your post, give it a fair hearing and promote it if it looks promising.
Glad to see you around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 3:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2005 4:04 PM AdminRandman has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 6 of 300 (262055)
11-21-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminRandman
11-21-2005 3:52 PM


Re: THE esential point?
AdminRandman - Before you do any topic promotion, I ask that you carefully consider what I quoted in message 3.
Is Faith open to any sort of real debate?
Is her bottom line "I know the Bible. The content of the Bible is the direct from God absolute truth, and anything I see to disagree with the Bible is by definition wrong?". That's the way I see it.
Is there any room for any real debate with Faith?
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminRandman, posted 11-21-2005 3:52 PM AdminRandman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminRandman, posted 11-21-2005 4:07 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 4:50 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 300 (262058)
11-21-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Adminnemooseus
11-21-2005 4:04 PM


Re: THE esential point?
I will, but I have no time and haven't read the OP yet, nor your response, in detail. I fired off a couple of responses on the ID topic I started and this, but I can't really give anything a lot of thought until after business hours.
I'll be back after 5pm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2005 4:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 300 (262071)
11-21-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Adminnemooseus
11-21-2005 4:04 PM


Re: THE esential point?
Moose, the topic that Ben opened was not exactly a debate topic, nor should this continuation be, no matter how it gets defined, as long as it aims at the same objective.
And this objective is that we are trying to establish the nature of YEC methodology as distinct from the scientific methodology EvC treats as essential. Ben had some ideas but apparently dropped them. I disagreed with him about his forensics model, proposing what I think is more accurate, the archaeology model, at least for Flood discussions, where you are looking for something you believe certainly to have once existed in the past.
This is in some sense only tangentially related to the presupposition of God's word, but that's how we got off on that aspect of the question. The Flood is believed by YECs to have existed beyond a doubt because it was revealed by God Himself to have happened. There is no call to debate this, or even discuss it really, in this context. It is simply the presupposition that YECs work from, that defines how YECs operate in relation to the scientific questions, which is what Ben originally wanted to define.
AbE: Although YECs will debate this point from time to time, we will never yield on it because our presupposition is that God's word trumps science. Same as Evos will never yield on their position that science trumps God's word. This is essential to defining the differences Ben was trying to get at.
And once again, as I've said many times already, this may make debate impossible, but then the point becomes to illuminate this fact instead of continuing to bash each other from the position of our dogmatic presuppositions -- yes, yours are just as dogmatic as ours.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 04:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-21-2005 4:04 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 300 (262075)
11-21-2005 5:00 PM


presuppositions
OK, I am promoting the topic here with the understanding that the topic is about the underlying presuppositions involved in the evolution/creation debate.
My own thinking is the topic has merit because whereas evolutionists exclude beliefs based on subjective, spiritual experiences which produce faith, often with an objective component, YECists do believe in the realiability of the Bible as accurate, partly based on their subjective experiences or perhaps for some tradition. However, YECers do also base their ideas on the type of evidence evos accept, even if they disagree with it.
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 11-21-2005 05:04 PM

BuckeyeChris
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 300 (262081)
11-21-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Faith, please correct me if I'm wrong. From reading your other posts on this subject, it seems like you want:
1) For evolutionists to admit that your kind of evidence, the word of God, should be given equal weight.
2) That the word of God trumps all other kind of evidence, when there is a conflict.
If I accept those 2 premises, I basically then have to admit that Faith is always right.
Where's the debate in that? What's the point? For differing viewpoints to be weighted against each other, there has to be some standard of evidence that we both share. If it's you use yours and I use mine, all we are going to do is huff and puff at each other.
Most of us accept science because there's one undeniable fact about it: it works. We can show you, we can repeat it, we can point to technology as science's obvious triumph.
You want to argue that IF God said such-and-such, then such-and-such must be right. Sure, granted. But then we must be allowed to question the premise "IF God said such-and-such".
Show us he did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:45 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 11 of 300 (262082)
11-21-2005 5:13 PM


technology levels
I think an interesting point is that science is limited to levels of technological advances, and so there is an inherent flaw within science to assess certain questions, at least until advances are made.
Most of the Christians I know believe the Bible is true primarily due to a subjective experience and relationship with God. There is an objective component, but it's within a subjective context. Specifically, a person has to have his or her doubts answered and that usually involves some analysis based on objective facts. In other words, they test their beliefs with their lives.
And there are those that even come to faith in the Bible and Christ as a result of a more objective analysis, such as McDowell or CS Lewis (I believe), but on the whole, it is difficult to test the things of the Bible and God without involving faith, and that's hard for the evo side to see.
The question then, to me, is it reasonable for people to wait for science to tell them whether something is true or not?
My answer is no, because science is pretty much in a primitive state. Think of where it will be 200 years from now.
So whether one accepts the Bible as valid evidence depends on presuppositions, and it is not unreasonable for people to become confident on thier own, that the Bible is true and thus weight their thinking accordingly.
Likewise, evos have their presuppositions. Almost all data analysis is done, for example, with the belief of a static time-line in the past, which may be incorrect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 5:53 PM randman has replied
 Message 29 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 6:11 PM randman has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 12 of 300 (262089)
11-21-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


The real issue
This topic illustrates the real problem. Creationists place too much faith in themselves - fallible human beings according even to their own theology. They can say things that are quite obviously false and then angrily insist that they must be right no matter what.
Faith fails to distinguish between the Bible and her interpretation of the Bible - if you look through the previous thread you will not see Faith consider the possibility that it might be her interpetation for he Bible that is in error. One might even think that that is even more unthinkable to her than the possiblity that the Bible might be wrong.
Moreover Faith is perfectly free to argue theology in the appropriate forums. She is not prevented by any bias in the rules or nature of this forum. It is entirely her decision to refuse to engage in such debates. If that places her at a disadvantage, then that is a consequence of her decision and one she should be prepared to live with instead of demanding special considerations.
Contrary to Faith's assertions it is not that we do not see the clash of worldviews. It is simply that Faith is not prepared to argue the issue in the appropriate places. That's her decision. But it is not a decision that entitles her to rig the rules of debate in her favour.
B

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:58 PM PaulK has replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 300 (262092)
11-21-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


You want a theological discussion, not a debate
Faith writes me:
quote:
You are again merely asserting your presupposition against mine.
No, I'm simply trying to point out the difference. We were talking about what loosely qualifies as 'debate' here on evc. You want your conception of god and his word to be accepted prima facie. Trouble is that once that's done any debate is obviated.
A debate does not require that either side accept any premise prima facie. The whole point of a debate is to test ideas, and the supernatural is simply not testable. Thus our positions are irreconcilable and a true debate can't take place.

"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 300 (262093)
11-21-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by BuckeyeChris
11-21-2005 5:12 PM


Reiteration: This is not a debate
Faith, please correct me if I'm wrong. From reading your other posts on this subject, it seems like you want:
1) For evolutionists to admit that your kind of evidence, the word of God, should be given equal weight.
2) That the word of God trumps all other kind of evidence, when there is a conflict.
If I accept those 2 premises, I basically then have to admit that Faith is always right.
I've acknowledged that will probably be the case. The way it stands now Science trumps the word of God when there is a conflict and those who hold to the word of God are treated as nuts and worse. YECs in other words "basically then have to admit that [Science] is always right", Science is God, and the God of the Bible must yield to Science. It's apparently either one or the other, which makes debate impossible. This is pretty much what I have been saying all along. As a YEC I refuse to submit to the Science Rules All presupposition and if my presupposition also cannot be accepted by my opponent, at the very least we can all agree that debate can't happen. I would regard that as progress myself.
Where's the debate in that?
See above and please reread my Message 8 about how this is not a debate, this is about following up on Ben's attempt to define YEC methodology as valid but not the same as the Science methodology held at EvC.
What's the point? For differing viewpoints to be weighted against each other, there has to be some standard of evidence that we both share. If it's you use yours and I use mine, all we are going to do is huff and puff at each other.
Well that is just about all we do, so I figure it's time to analyze the situation and admit that we are coming from completely irreconcilable opposite positions.
Most of us accept science because there's one undeniable fact about it: it works. We can show you, we can repeat it, we can point to technology as science's obvious triumph.
YECs have no problem whatever with science, we simply refuse to allow it to judge God. Sorry, God judges science.
You want to argue that IF God said such-and-such, then such-and-such must be right. Sure, granted. But then we must be allowed to question the premise "IF God said such-and-such".
Sure, but that's all that ever goes on here. This thread is for getting at the root of the conflict itself.
Show us he did.
That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the methodologies that do battle here between Science and God.
It is a PRESUPPOSITION for a YEC that He did. That is the whole point I'm making. A Presupposition, a Premise, an Assumption, a Given, just as the methods of Science are that for the Evolutionist side of the argument in attacking that Premise. I am pointing out that our Presuppositions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND IRRECONCILABLY ANTAGONISTIC.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 05:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by BuckeyeChris, posted 11-21-2005 5:12 PM BuckeyeChris has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 5:51 PM Faith has replied
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 6:04 PM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 300 (262096)
11-21-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
11-21-2005 5:45 PM


Why YEC?
How you doing there, Faith?
What I don't understand is why a young earth and special creation need be so important to a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024