Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 300 (262121)
11-21-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
11-21-2005 5:58 PM


Re: The real issue
I am among the ONLY group that does NOT place faith in ourselves, but only in God's word. Of course we can't be perfect in our understanding but that is our position and it is NOT the position of most of the others here at EvC, even the Christians, as they feel free to make the Bible fit what they think science says, even to discard portions of it that don't fit.
Faith, I would be careful not to assume that your group is the only faithful to God's word. I, for one, believe I am fully placing my faith in God's word.
At the same time, I am unsure the Bible says some of the same things you think it says. I believe in Noah's flood for example, but am doubtful the "days" of creation were meant to be taken as man's days.
Keep in mind that centuries before science claimed evolution and an old earth, this intepretation enjoyed some prominence among fervent believers, both Christian and Jewish.
I have even noticed at times that parts of Genesis sound exactly like evolution. For example, God speaks for the earth to bring forth, which when you break it down, suggests that the earth evolves life out of it.
As you know, I don't accept evolution because of a number of things, one of them is that I don't believe the data supports evolutionary models, but at the same time, there is a certain level of vagueness in some parts of the Bible.
For example, whereas I think the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not vague, I would say some eschatology is not, and that we should not fall out with our brethren that believe a little differently in areas that are not quite as clear-cut in the Word.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 06:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:23 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 32 of 300 (262122)
11-21-2005 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Nighttrain
11-21-2005 6:11 PM


Re: technology levels
Just want to correct one thing in that rant. The miracles did not die out with the Bible, but are on-going in the faith community walking in such things, and we see the same sorts of things Jesus saw his time, except maybe turning the water into wine and walking on water.
But maybe that's happening somewhere too, for all I know.
I know I've seen enough bona-fide miracles as to not doubt they occur anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 6:11 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 6:34 PM randman has replied

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


Message 33 of 300 (262123)
11-21-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
11-21-2005 6:17 PM


Re: The real issue
We will simply have to risk disagreeing on some points, Randman. We can argue it out on some other thread sometime perhaps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:17 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 34 of 300 (262124)
11-21-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
11-21-2005 5:58 PM


Re: The real issue
I beleive that I can show that you place more faith in your own beliefs than you do in the Bible, but that is a subject for a different debate.
Equally to state that your view is the "typcial Bible-believers" is of no value since naturally you wil not accept anyone whose views are significantly different as a "Bible-believer".
As to the difference in methodology t seems obvious. The YEC methoffology is based on assuming conclusions and then trying to justify them - without really caring about whether the justificatiosn are sound or true or even defensible. It is not a methodology for getting to the truth but for maintaining fixed beliefs no matter whether they are true or false.
Thus the YEC methodology has no place on a board where the truth of YEC beliefs is in question. Indeed if allowed to both sides it has no place on any debate board. When it is asked to deal with challenges to the central beliefs the YEC methodology simply begs the question.
Thus YEC mewthodology is fundamentally unsound - as shown by the fcat that it so often leads YECs to angrily defend blatantly false statements (in some cases even misepresenting the Bible itself).a

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 5:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:36 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:40 PM PaulK has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 35 of 300 (262128)
11-21-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by randman
11-21-2005 6:22 PM


Re: technology levels
Just want to correct one thing in that rant. The miracles did not die out with the Bible, but are on-going in the faith community walking in such things, and we see the same sorts of things Jesus saw his time, except maybe turning the water into wine and walking on water.
But maybe that's happening somewhere too, for all I know.
I know I've seen enough bona-fide miracles as to not doubt they occur anymore.
Oh, really? Care to show a bit of evidence of a cure of leprosy in our age by laying on hands? Any dead been restored lately? Any demons into pigs going around?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:00 PM Nighttrain has replied

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


Message 36 of 300 (262129)
11-21-2005 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
11-21-2005 6:25 PM


Re: The real issue
Equally to state that your view is the "typcial Bible-believers" is of no value since naturally you wil not accept anyone whose views are significantly different as a "Bible-believer".
I accept differences of interpretation under this definition within reason, but those differences are for another thread.
If the Bible is treated as the final authority that's the category I'm talking about.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 06:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 6:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2005 2:31 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 37 of 300 (262130)
11-21-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
11-21-2005 6:25 PM


Re: The real issue
Thus the YEC methodology has no place on a board where the truth of YEC beliefs is in question.
Absolutely right there. That's the attitude at EvC and we are discussing the elements involved in it. It is quite probable that the debate here that calls itself E versus C is nothing but a sham.
Indeed if allowed to both sides it has no place on any debate board. When it is asked to deal with challenges to the central beliefs the YEC methodology simply begs the question.
You do state the EvC position concisely there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2005 6:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2005 2:48 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 38 of 300 (262137)
11-21-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Nighttrain
11-21-2005 6:34 PM


Re: technology levels
Yea, that kind of stuff. You got some money for a plane ticket and willing to travel for a bit to see for yourself?
Or maybe you can look around where you live? If you involve yourself with a group of believers where this kind of thing happens, you will see such things occur, over time, among ordinary people.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-21-2005 07:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 6:34 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 8:29 PM randman has not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 39 of 300 (262148)
11-21-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
11-21-2005 6:04 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
YEC argument requires that the statement that "The Bible is true" be true.
I think most YECers disagree with that statement and think science alone can verify their theory.
Good point. Please allow me to try and rephrase what I said, in order to better match my thought:
The YEC methodology presupposes that "The Bible is true" to be true.
I would say they are open to all, but of necessity require faith.
I thought you might say so... and seems fair enough to me. Except...
If you do take this position, then you're trying to maintain that objective "observables" are what we want to use in a debate. Good move, I think. But that means, you need to present objective "observables" to argue for your position that all people have access to these things.
Can you present such evidence (either here or somewhere else?)
Even if you can, you're in a tough spot--there's not much philosophical commitment to making observations using an electron microscope or whatever, but there is for making the types of observations that you're telling us are required. I'm not saying that makes you wrong, just that it's tough.
And if you can't provide really solid evidence... either a lack of evidence, technology, etc., then ... where does that leave us? Seems to me that would mean debate is out of the question... so why not stop trying to debate, and simply approach it as a mission to save?
The point is, you either have to ground faith as accessible to all, or you have to fundamentally change the "rules" of the debate. So if it's grounding faith as accessible to all, please provide the objective evidence supporting that.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:04 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM Ben! has replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 40 of 300 (262149)
11-21-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
11-21-2005 6:09 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Hi Faith,
Thanks for the kind words. And I'm glad to see there's more from the YEC / creation side, so that posters get less overwhelmed by responses, and you can each pick and choose your spots to speak, rather than spending all your time trying to keep up.
I myself am having trouble finding time to read on the board, let alone reply. So I'm not sure how much I can contribute. I do owe holmes a big reply in a topic I'm really interested in too...
Anyway, glad to see you stop in, at least for the time being.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 41 of 300 (262152)
11-21-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Ben!
11-21-2005 7:32 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Ben, couple of points. First, I am saying it is reasonable to think the Bible is true if you have valid personal experiences to think that.
I agree that you cannot necessarily prove beliefs founded on subjective experience in a scientific debate, but it is worth noting that science is limited by it's technology.
Second, I think some aspects of science are indeed indicating that what was formerly called "spiritual" is a fundamental part of reality, but that's a different thread.
Third, I don't really accept the rules of debate as you think in limiting them to "observables." I think to make a scientific claim, that since science is built on observables, it comes into play, but we debate more than science on the forum.
Moreover, even in science, such as string theory, you see a lot of work and discussion way past "observables", based on math which can be loosely called a form of logic, and so I would argue that what is often excluded as philosophical and what is included as real science can at times be a subjective call, and that some open-mindedness is necessary if we are to obtain truth.
Just because something cannot yet be proven does not mean it isn't likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 7:32 PM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Ben!, posted 11-22-2005 3:23 AM randman has not replied
 Message 288 by nator, posted 11-26-2005 2:04 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 42 of 300 (262153)
11-21-2005 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 6:09 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Oh I debate even when the whole thing is stacked against me because I love debate -- until it just gets too ridiculously futile and destructive. That's not the point. This is another subject. You are merely continuing with the same biased position everybody has here. There is nothing any more dogmatic about my view than yours. You don't feel any need to support your premise with argument either, your premise being that science has the right to determine everything, including the Bible. It's an assumption for Evos here, a given, you merely assert it from time to time. When does anyone ever treat that premise as debatable? You don't. You take it for granted. That is no different from my taking the word for God as a nonnegotiable premise. And I defend my premise by saying the God who made this universe has the right to tell us what to think about it over anything mere human beings come up with. Makes sense to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:06 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 300 (262162)
11-21-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
11-21-2005 7:48 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
You don't feel any need to support your premise with argument either, your premise being that science has the right to determine everything, including the Bible.
Well, that's not true. Certainly I haven't supported that premise here, because you've made a specific request not to debate that subject, but that is a view that I've succesfully defended in the past, and one you're not even remotely equipped to challenge.
You take it for granted.
No, I don't, and that's how I'm different than you. Better.
And I defend my premise by saying the God who made this universe has the right to tell us what to think about it over anything mere human beings come up with.
That's not a defense; that's simply the repetition of your premise. A successful defense of your premise would show evidence for why we should believe that God exists, is the author of the Bible, and intended it to be taken as a literal account of history. To date you've successfully argued none of those points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by AdminRandman, posted 11-21-2005 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 10:44 PM crashfrog has replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 300 (262164)
11-21-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 8:06 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
and one you're not even remotely equipped to challenge
This is the kind of extraneous comment we don't need, and the kind of thing that will ruin the thread. I recognize many including myself as randman do this at times, but it still needs to be corrected when it starts. Otherwise, the thread degenerates into everyone responding with this sort of thing.
Stick to the facts relevant to the discussion, not personal assessments of the other person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:28 PM AdminRandman has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 300 (262167)
11-21-2005 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by randman
11-21-2005 6:09 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
No, rand, you're wrong. Science does not presuppose anything. Everything is testable.
What part of theory of gravity is not testable?

"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 25 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 6:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 8:29 PM berberry has not replied
 Message 51 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:46 PM berberry has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024