Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 10:17 AM
27 online now:
Aussie, JonF, vimesey (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,699 Year: 4,736/19,786 Month: 858/873 Week: 214/376 Day: 7/57 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
Faith
Member
Posts: 30871
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 61 of 300 (262226)
11-21-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 11:31 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
I didn't make it personal. You must have misread something.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:31 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 PM Faith has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3002 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 62 of 300 (262227)
11-21-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by berberry
11-21-2005 10:02 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Well, discussing gravity waves or some other mechanism is off-topic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 PM berberry has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


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 responded

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

jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 300 (262229)
11-21-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
11-21-2005 11:30 PM


Re: So convince us
So Faith said:

So if you think you could entertain the idea that God trumps science (?)

which appears to be your central premise. In addition you have repeated misrepresented others by saying they are fixed in their premises.

So jar responded:

jar writes:

Convince us.

Provide the evidence.

Are you now saying that you will not try to convince us, will not try to provide evidence to support your premise?

Are you admitting that your basic premise is so weak that it cannot be supported?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 11:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:04 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:08 AM jar has responded
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:40 AM jar has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 65 of 300 (262232)
11-22-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
11-21-2005 11:41 PM


aces, dueces, one-eyed faces, suicidal kings, and jokers
jo nar, i told you before in the chat. you're not listening.

god trumps science.
god trumps reason.
god trumps logic.
god trumps evidence.
god trumps accuracy.
god trumps truth.
god trumps everything.

don't you see? faith doesn't HAVE to entertain your premises, because she's already got a hand full of winning cards.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:41 PM jar has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3002 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 300 (262234)
11-22-2005 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by jar
11-21-2005 11:41 PM


Re: So convince us
Jar, what's the purpose of the thread? To defend the claim the Bible is true, or discuss the underlying beliefs that make up the evo/creo debate?

I think Faith and Iblis brought up a fruitful area for exploration, one of where there is a belief something occurred and then going to find evidence for it. So the scientific evidence is whatever they find, in this case the factual claims of YECers and whether they are right or wrong.

Iblis brought up a good point that he thinks there is more scientific and educated way to do this and a less educated way. But the basic premise is valid. There is nothing wrong with considering a historical account and seeing if the evidence fits.

But if you are asking Faith to defend her view of the Bible, isn't that a new thread? I would just say it is a subjective belief with an objective component but not necessarily well-suited for scientific verification all the time, at least the parts that God did this or that.

You agree or disagree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:41 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:11 AM randman has responded
 Message 107 by jar, posted 11-22-2005 11:43 AM randman has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 300 (262236)
11-22-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
11-22-2005 12:08 AM


Re: So convince us
ar, what's the purpose of the thread? To defend the claim the Bible is true, or discuss the underlying beliefs that make up the evo/creo debate?

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it the underlying belief of creationism that the bible is true? so, wouldn't discussing that be discussing the underlying belief of creationism?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:08 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:17 AM arachnophilia has responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3002 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 68 of 300 (262239)
11-22-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
11-22-2005 12:11 AM


Re: So convince us
It would be discussing that belief, but not how that belief interacts with the debate, nor evo assumptions, and that's what the thread is about.

The starting point here are there are givens Faith's view on YECism and the evo view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:11 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by arachnophilia, posted 11-22-2005 12:22 AM randman has not yet responded

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 300 (262241)
11-22-2005 12:19 AM


Let's keep focused
Faith writes:

Well you've sunk to personal remarks and I lose interest at that point.

crashfrog writes:

Nice try, but you've been personal since your first post to me in this thread.


Overall this thread has maintained a pretty high tone. But there have been a few slips.

Let's see if we can get it back on focus. Maybe the two of you should take a breather, get some rest, relax for a while.


To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
  • Discussion of moderation procedures
  • Comments on promotions of Proposed New Topics
  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • arachnophilia
    Member (Idle past 81 days)
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 70 of 300 (262243)
    11-22-2005 12:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 68 by randman
    11-22-2005 12:17 AM


    Re: So convince us
    i think jar was asking faith to provide some reason for her methodology and philosophy -- a good explanation of why "god trumps science" or perhaps some examples.

    maybe asking her to justify her permise is a little out of line, sure, but when her premise is "ignore the other premise, but you have to accept mine" perhaps asking for some kind of reason why people should serves as more of a rhetorical device than anything else. ie:

    "why should i? why is your premise any different than mine?"


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:17 AM randman has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 14798
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 71 of 300 (262253)
    11-22-2005 2:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
    11-21-2005 6:36 PM


    Re: The real issue
    So do you accept old-Earth creationism as valid ? After all there are people who hold to that and just differ on the interpretation of the Bible such as Hugh Ross.e
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 36 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:36 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 78 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 8:03 AM PaulK has responded

      
    PaulK
    Member
    Posts: 14798
    Joined: 01-10-2003
    Member Rating: 3.0


    Message 72 of 300 (262254)
    11-22-2005 2:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 37 by Faith
    11-21-2005 6:40 PM


    Re: The real issue
    quote:

    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

    Well if YECs can't accept a methodology that is allows debate, preferring instead a methodology that causes them to make error on error trying to defend a posiiton that they can never admit to be wrong then there cannot be a real debate.

    But that is a deficiency of the YECs posting here. There is no reason why a YEC cannot use the methodologies of science or philosophy. They do not have to grant that those methodologies are the final word to apply them. Indeed if their faith was strong they should expect to be able to apply those methodologies and win - if only they could let go of the errors generated by their own methodology and have the humility taught by Christianity instead of the pride taught by Creationism.

    So giving in to your demands would not produce a more genuine debate. Instead it would legitimate the sham.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 6:40 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 79 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 8:08 AM PaulK has responded

      
    Ben!
    Member (Idle past 1725 days)
    Posts: 1154
    From: San Diego, CA
    Joined: 10-14-2004


    Message 73 of 300 (262255)
    11-22-2005 3:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 41 by randman
    11-21-2005 7:48 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.

    Randman, this is fine, but you're not addressing my point. My point is about objectivity and discussion. Are we using objectivity (things that are observable by anybody) ONLY in our discussion, or are YECs requiring that subjectivity be allowed into the discussion.

    When I asked you the question, you suggested that only objective things are being introduced; faith is available to all.

    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.

    Yes, that's a different thread. I don't see any need for it to be incorporated here at all. It's way outside of what I'm asking about.

    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.

    But what we're discussing here is YEC vs. EVO methodologies for empirical investigation. i.e. dealing with observables. So yes, you're right. But not in any way that applies to this thread.

    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.

    That's fine, I agree to some extent. Nevertheless, what is being called "observable" or what is being presented philosophically, etc--as far as it is empirical, it is objective.

    My question is about objectivity and it's role in this debate. I'd really appreciate if you go back to my message 39 and address the thinking there: if you continue to claim that you are staying within the bounds of objectivity for debating, and you continue to claim that faith is objectively available to all, then you need to back it up with some objective evidence and arguments. I only have personal experiences and testimonies to go on; I don't have any evidence going either way. But I'm not the one making the claim--you are.

    Thanks!
    Ben


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 41 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:48 PM randman has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 30871
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 74 of 300 (262291)
    11-22-2005 7:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 16 by Ben!
    11-21-2005 5:53 PM


    Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
    I'm having trouble following this part of the discussion about the supposed "personal" aspects of believing in the Bible. I suspect this isn't really relevant to the discussion. I don't think it matters for the sake of this discussion how one arrives at believing the Bible to be the word of God, in other words, simply that this belief defines YECs and some other creationists (they may interpret parts of it differently but if they regard the Bible as the final authority we are in the same camp).

    Then, there are two simple questions:
    1. Are we discussing things where some "observations" could in principle be made by anybody, or are we allowing "observations" that is available only to a "priveleged" set of individuals?

    2. If we are going to allow "observations" that are not in principle available to anybody, on what grounds do the "unpriveleged" accept "observations" from the priveleged? In other words, if I can't in principle see it myself, why should I trust somebody else who says they see it? Especially when they're strangers that I don't know.

    IN PRINCIPLE, ANYBODY may take the position that the Bible is the word of God for the sake of argument. It's not a "privileged" position if you look at it that way. So I don't think any of this is relevant to the discussion. The grounds for taking the Bible as the inviolable word of God can be debated on another thread, but for the purposes of this discussion we should simply keep in mind that this IS the premise that defines how YECs -- and some other creationists --engage in the scientific arguments here, and it's the methodology that is the focus of the discussion.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 16 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 5:53 PM Ben! has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 166 by Ben!, posted 11-23-2005 8:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 30871
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 75 of 300 (262292)
    11-22-2005 7:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
    11-21-2005 11:36 PM


    Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
    Crash, quite seriously I have had no intention of saying anything personal so if I SEEM to have it was unintentional.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 PM crashfrog has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2005 9:13 AM Faith has responded

      
    Prev1234
    5
    67
    ...
    20NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019