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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.