Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 300 (262116)
11-21-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Here's what I guess I don't understand.
You've been completly open about the fact that you don't believe that you have to support your premise with argument.
So what are you here to do? What is there to debate with you? Why do you post here? What do you think we do here?
Your argument is valid, as I've said, in that it logically derives from your premise; but because you won't support your premise, your position can't be taken as true. So what are you here to do, exactly? Clearly, you're not here to debate.

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 42 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM crashfrog 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

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


Message 46 of 300 (262168)
11-21-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AdminRandman
11-21-2005 8:15 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Just as long as you hold Faith to the same standard.
But I will abide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AdminRandman, posted 11-21-2005 8:15 PM AdminRandman has not replied

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


Message 52 of 300 (262185)
11-21-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
11-21-2005 8:46 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
I don't think we have been able to test gravity directly in the sense of observing gravity waves or whatever causes gravity.
You didn't pick this up from Wheeler? Mass causes gravity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 9:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 60 of 300 (262225)
11-21-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
11-21-2005 10:44 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Well you've sunk to personal remarks and I lose interest at that point.
Then why did you make it personal?
Also my defense that the God of the universe has the right to judge science IS a defense
No, it's just a restatement of your premise. You need to support your premise with argumentation supporting the idea that there is a God, that he's the author of the Bible, and that his intent for Genesis is as a literal history.
Or, don't support those things. But don't claim to be defending your premises when all you're doing is restating them.
They are nonnegotiable premises.
The fact that you frame the discussion this way proves to me that you already recognize the inherent unsupportability of your premises; you know that there's no way you could successfully support them with argumentation and evidence.
Take them on faith, if you like; no skin off my nose. But don't insist that we accept them the same way, or complain when we don't. You're not willing to do what it takes to convince us or defend your position. What right do you have to complain when we simply point that out?
the point is that the Evo side of this argument does take a hard line on science as their given.
But we don't take it as a given; that's a conclusion that we support with evidence and argumentation. We've succesfully defended that position against all challenge. It's not simply accepted without question; it's a position that has stood the test of evidence and debate.
Something that your position has never been able to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 10:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 11:33 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 10:42 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 63 of 300 (262228)
11-21-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
11-21-2005 11:33 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
I didn't make it personal. You must have misread something.
Nice try, but you've been personal since your first post to me in this thread.
Look, I'll keep it out of the personal realm if you do. Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 11:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:37 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 86 of 300 (262319)
11-22-2005 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
11-22-2005 7:37 AM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Well, then, respond to my points and we'll try to keep it civil. But I'm not going to allow you to attack me personally or try to imply that my motives are anything like yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:37 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 9:33 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 91 of 300 (262330)
11-22-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
11-22-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
How do you think that it's not personal when you speculate about my motives or attempt to draw conclusions about my mental state, or the way in which I come to conclusions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 9:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 10:05 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 97 of 300 (262366)
11-22-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Faith
11-22-2005 10:42 AM


Re: Here's the situation, Crash
You support your premise with the same kinds of evidence that the premise asserts.
I start to get it. The premise you're challenging is not evolution, or any evolutionary belief; you're challenging the fact that the inductive conclusions of science can only be supported inductively.
Well, ok. That's a well-known problem in the philosophy of science. Scientific conclusions are inductive - that is, are generalized from a plurality of specific cases - and the only evidence that induction as a method is valid is itself inductive - that is, it's always worked before. In other words, the proof is circular.
Sure. Circular. Of course, just because a proof is circular doesn't mean that it doesn't describe something true, only that the argument in support of it is not valid. At some point, you either accept the inductive truth that science gets results, or you don't. But you don't get to pick and choose - you can't say that inductive results about chemistry or electronics, for instance, are valid, but results about natural history are not.
It's all or nothing. Either you accept the power of the inductive method to generate accurate models of the universe, or you don't. But there's no intellectual consistency in saying "I accept induction as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible."
But when it comes to MY premise, it is not a scientific premise, it is not amenable to scientific proofs, but you are judging it BY your scientific standards
Well, yes, I do. Because scientific standards are how I discern truth from lies. Your position doesn't meet that standard of truth, and therefore I conclude that it is a lie. EvC exists, as plainly stated by its founder and creator, to judge creationist views acccording to scientific standards.
This has never been hidden from you, Faith. Everybody accepts it, it's a plainly open condition of posting here. So, again, what's the problem? If you don't like the rule, why do you post here? Do you really think we're going to change the rules just for you? More than we already have, I mean.
Your standards prove your own premise to your satisfaction but the same standards are not applicable to my premise. My premise is that God has spoken and His authority is over all scientific considerations.
So exactly what dialogue do you suppose is possible between us? You'll never accept my standards of proof; I'll never accept yours. I post here because this forum conforms to my standards (and I to its), I don't post at Christian forums because I can't accept their standards.
So why do you come back here to post? And why are you always focus on the boring topic of telling us all about a rule we already know? Do you really think we're going to change it? Doing so wouldn't produce a dialogue; it would simply be evolutionists presenting scientific proof and creationists presenting Bible verses. What kind of debate is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 10:42 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 11:18 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 111 of 300 (262394)
11-22-2005 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
11-22-2005 11:18 AM


Re: Here's the situation, Crash
Nor should YECs post at EvC then
Well, not all YEC's hold the same positions about their beliefs. And many creationists, of every kind, believe that they can support their position starting from the same premise of scientific empiricism that evolutionists begin with. Unlike you, they believe that unrestricted scientific empiricism can substantiate the Bible, even starting from a position of the supremacy of scientific knowledge.
Those are the creationists we want to talk with. People who simply want to promulgate their beliefs, absent any level of scientific evidence, shouldn't expect to find a welcome here.
and EvC appears to offer the possibility of fair debate, but when you examine the actual conditions involved, the fact that the evolutionist premises are taken as gospel, it becomes clear this cannot happen.
Well, it can and does happen, has happened, because not all creationists are like you. Many of them are foolish enough to believe that their views can be supported by valid science.
Spelling this out is what I am doing on this thread, and pretty clearly it seems to me, so that your still not getting it is a puzzle.
No, I completely get it. People like you can never be a part of the debate, and so you shouldn't be surprised to find yourself not welcome here. But not all YEC's are like you. Not all creationists are like you. Proponents of intelligent design are definately not like you.
The site doesn't exist just to talk to YEC's. It doesn't exist to talk to people like you. People who believe that valid naturalist science can prove design are definately not like you, and those are the people we're interested in talking to.
Those are the only people with whom the debate can proceed. It can't proceed with people like you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 11:18 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 11:54 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 117 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:03 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 118 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:04 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 120 of 300 (262407)
11-22-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
11-22-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Here's the situation, Crash
I am trying to define the YEC premise.
It's not clear to me how you come to the conclusion that you're able to speak for literally every YEC.
Now, granted, your thoughts on the subject are probably more advanced than your peers. And the sooner they come around to your way of thinking, the sooner we won't have religion injected into science classes. In fact it's my hope that YEC's evenutally abandon "godless science" altogether and move into caves.
But a lot of YEC's don't agree with you. They believe that their premise about the Bible can be defended by the same science that evolutionists practice.
But the fact is that all YECs DO share this premise: God has spoken and we work from there. You haven't addressed this.
Well, you've asked me not to address that premise. And I've already told you that I find your conclusion from your premise to be valid - given that God exists, and that the Bible was authored by him, and that he's intended it as a literal history (which I think you can support from the Bible itself), the argument that science must take a backseat to that is pretty much inescapable. But, I don't share your premise, so that valid argument isn't true to me. Make sense?
I''m not going to have this argument with you, because we're in total agreement. And I've told you this several times so I don't understand why it doesn't sink in. Given your premise your argument is inescapable. Fine. I don't give you your premise, though, but you're not interested in arguing about that with me. Also fine.
The argument you need to be having is with your YEC peers, who do not believe that your argument is valid. You need to have the discussion with them, not with evolutionists. They're the ones who have the relevant challenge to your argument, they're the ones that share your premise. They're the ones with whom the discussion can proceed.
Not me, though. Not us. Since we'll never grant your premise, and you'll never accept ours, it doesn't matter how valid each of our arguments are; neither will accept the other as being true. (Stop me if you don't understand the difference between a valid argument and a true one.)
Have the discussion with YEC's, they're the ones that you need to talk to, because believe me, most of them do not see the validity of your argument - but they're sure as hell not going to believe me when I tell them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 11:54 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 121 of 300 (262408)
11-22-2005 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by randman
11-22-2005 12:04 PM


Re: Here's the situation, Crash
Let me add, crash, that you sure seem very interested in talking to Faith....hmmm...something doesn't add up.
She's reasonable, lucid, and clear. She's at least as smart as I am. It's actually a pleasure to discuss with her, so long as one has the proper expectations about what arguments she's willing to be a part of. I think she generates a lot of frustration among my peers because she's very good at refusing to get into the arguments she doesn't want to get into, and so she's hard to draw into battle.
If you're willing to meet her on her subject, though, she's actually fun to discuss with. Seriously. I don't think she'll ever fit in, here, or ever cease to be frustrated that EvC is specifically and openly formulated to disallow her premises, but I can't deny that it's pleasant to talk to her, at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:04 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 163 of 300 (262753)
11-23-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
11-23-2005 5:57 PM


Re: Premise
I'm WAY less interested in developing the creationist point of view than in REALLY getting someone to see these premises in diametric conflict and see them as the reason the debate can't really happen.
Isn't that exactly what I'd been agreeing with?
Or is that why you stopped replying? Because we agreed? I guess I'd still like to know why you post here when you're so certain debate can't happen. Perhaps you'd like EvC to make some concession in the rules to your position, but I don't see what kind of concession is possible. If a challenge of scientific evidence is met by a statement of the Bible, what kind of debate is that? We're reduced to glaring at each other from across the river instead of putting our ideas into conflict.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 11-23-2005 5:57 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 176 of 300 (262866)
11-24-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PaulK
11-24-2005 7:25 AM


Re: Resolving the issue
On faith-related fora we should respect the authority of God over science in the following way. If it can be shown that God did say something and that it is interpreted correctly (that is that the meaning of the statement is God's intended meaning) it should be accepted no matter what the scientific evidence states.
So.
If I'm looking at something green, and the Bible tells me that what I'm looking at is red, I'm supposed to conclude that there's something wrong with my eyes?
If that's the case - if I'm supposed to distrust my own senses to that degree - how can I know that I'm reading the Bible correctly? If my direct observation can be so fooled, how can I know that I'm not being fooled about the text on the page? Even inventing words that aren't there?
I see the supremacy of the Bible over observation as inherently self-contradictory, given that observation (of its written text) is the only way to percieve the Bible. If we can't trust our observations to be accurate about the world, then we can't trust them about the Bible which is in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 9:49 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 297 of 300 (263360)
11-26-2005 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
11-26-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Nice use of the word "transect."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 11-26-2005 2:15 PM Faith 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