|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
but what is important is adhering to what God Himself has said and His word clearly shows a young earth and a worldwide Flood among other things "Science" disputes Well, the Catholics don't seem to think it's important. That's a rather large group of Christians. I suppose they think that parts of the Bible are literally true and parts are not. They think, I suppose, that Jesus is the son of God and that he literally died on the cross. I would think that would be the most important matter, not the details of Genesis. I guess you believe that if you can't believe what Genesis says, you can't believe what Matthew, Mark and those other fellows say. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2005 05:12 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Science does not presuppose anything. Everything is testable. I suppose it presupposes the validity of the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that I don't think genuine debate here is truly possible, and we are trying to get at the reasons for that. It might be if you set up ahead of the discussion what the assumptions are going to be for a given debate. One might say, in the following debate we are going to assume that God exists and that the Bible, every bit of it, is the literal word of God. Then you could have various debates. For example, you could debate about what the word "literal" means. In point of fact, we've done that. Your view, I believe, is that one can figure out if some passage is literal by the context. Or we could have a debate about the nature of God. It's all going to have to be Bible-centered, however. But if someone doesn't believe in God and wants to argue that, such a position would be clearly out of court in this particular debate. So all you have to do is state what the assumptions are going to be ahead of time, and we can debate it. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2005 07:42 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But this topic is really aimed at the problems in the science debates rather than the faith debates Ok, I got it. What you are saying is that this is supposed to be a forum where one debates whether or not evolution is true, but that the science forums automatically assume that evolution is true by the fact that they demand the poster accept what are considered well-established scientific facts. (As regards cutting-edge science, that is another matter). So if you make some comment, say, about how the stratigraphy of the earth has been traditionally misinterpreted, this will automatically be considered out of court.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment of what I'm saying. Thanks So they should just say in the guidelines for the science forums, "to debate on these forums, one must accept the validity of well-established scientific facts, such as that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution of life forms in some sense occurred, although the details of how evolution occurred are of course debatable. If you wish to argue a YEC viewpoint, go to the faith forums."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Don't do a GD. Do a regular topic.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2005 02:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I consider myself to be neither YEC or EVO, but IDC; Intelligent Design Creationist, interpreting the Biblical historical record both literally and compatible with observed scientific thermodynamic laws and interpreting what is observed, using the Biblical record as what appears to be the most reasonable and sensible interpretation of what is observed. My hypothesis interprets observed design and complexity by the likely existence of higher intelligence existing in the universe than what is physically observed on earth by humans, the highest being the supreme designer and manager of the universe, having been creating, destroying and modifying things in the universe eternally, from whom all things came and in/by whom all things exist. I have my own hypothesis, and mine is that if my Mamma had not happened to run into my Pappa on that fateful day at a train station, circa 1940, I would never have been born. This is the exquisite complexity of my creation. A few minutes here and there, a late train, and they would never have met, and then what would have become of me? Obviously I was designed--by what power I do not know and perhaps will never know. All I know is that I was fated to be and fated to be talking to you here tonight. It fills one with awe to understand and fully grasp what a close call it was that I almost did not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
OK, I was having trouble reading it but if that's what it means, this is a solution that has been run by before and it doesn't work. The science side applies its criteria on the religion side too and some object strenuously to any attempt to exclude it, because EvC IS a science site after all. Suggest an idea for constructive change, Faith. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-24-2005 01:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But I can propose for starters what I've been saying in the last few posts, that it would help if the presuppositions of the Biblical creationists were respected as a coherent worldview, no matter what their degree of scientific knowledge, and I'd add as well, one with an illustrious history in Western civilization Let's think about this. I know you and I can talk. True, I offended you once, but I apologized for that. So let's apply how we can talk to the whole field. And I think what I suggested earlier is a good idea. You just lay out your premises beforehand, and if people don't want to accept that, then they are out of court for that debate. What's wrong with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Do you believe that it is reasonable to believe that one has been abducted by aliens and probed in one's nether regions if one believes one has had a "valid personal experience Yes, very reasonable, if one has in fact been abducted.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024