|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This topic illustrates the real problem. Creationists place too much faith in themselves - fallible human beings according even to their own theology. They can say things that are quite obviously false and then angrily insist that they must be right no matter what.
Faith fails to distinguish between the Bible and her interpretation of the Bible - if you look through the previous thread you will not see Faith consider the possibility that it might be her interpetation for he Bible that is in error. One might even think that that is even more unthinkable to her than the possiblity that the Bible might be wrong. Moreover Faith is perfectly free to argue theology in the appropriate forums. She is not prevented by any bias in the rules or nature of this forum. It is entirely her decision to refuse to engage in such debates. If that places her at a disadvantage, then that is a consequence of her decision and one she should be prepared to live with instead of demanding special considerations. Contrary to Faith's assertions it is not that we do not see the clash of worldviews. It is simply that Faith is not prepared to argue the issue in the appropriate places. That's her decision. But it is not a decision that entitles her to rig the rules of debate in her favour. B
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The question is not whether you agree with OEC but whether you can accept OECs as "Bible-Believers"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Then my point is confirmed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I am following the discussion - and previous discussions. You have repeatedly demanded that YEC presuppsotions should be accepted in debate - and never once offered any valid reason why we should do that.
And if YECs fail to do well in the scientific forums or in philosophical discussiosn I have to say that a good part of that is that their pride influences their arguments. Consider Buzsaw's argument over hurricane strikes. He found one site on the web whcih said what he wanted and - ignofring the fact that the site was mainly about Penny Stocks he promoted it as reliable and factual - even after storng evidence was produced indicating that it was simply a case of shoddy research. So far as I can tell he couldn't even be bothered to look at much of the opposing evidence. A penny stock website is not the Word of God. Or we can consider your own recent performance where you make bizarre claims like the idea that mutations do not increase genetic variation. That's not defending the Word of God - that's defending your own argument - an argument based on not even knwoing basic facts. The evidnece then is that many creationists are proud and closed-minded and that causes them to remain ignorant and to make irrational arguments. And that is the problem. As for the idea that humility is agreeing with the doctrines of your Church while castigating any who would differ for "pride", what can I say ? That is not humility, that is pride. And you are completely wrong to say that the conflict is between God and science - the conflict is between your beliefs and science. If you cannot admit tat your beleifs might be wrong, that God might not agree with your interpretations, then you place your pride above God Himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The science side does not demand that you should submit God's authority to the authority of science.
On the hurricane discussion Buzsaw was trying to claim that hurricanes had struck the US in greatly increased frequency since 1948. The article he referred to was not based on any religious points - rather it misunderstood and badly misinterpreted a NOAA report. Your point about mutations is still wrong. You say "variability is about the nuber of alleles available" - so adding a new allele increases that variation. Your claim that a mutation removes an allele from the population is not evne ocnsistent with your argument.So thanks again for demonstrating that YEC methodolgoy puts pride - insistign that you are right - ahead of rationality and truth. And while you didn't say "the doctrines of your Church" that is what you are really talking about. Essentially your idea of humility is promoting yourself as the voice of God. And you are quite wrong to say that I put science ahead of the word of God. Show to me that the Bible as you interpet it IS the literal world of the one true God and I'll beleive it. In other words I don't deny God's authority - I deny your authority and the authority of your Church to tell me what God said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I shouldn't have to refute it because it is obviously false...
quote: But nobody who says that beleives that God said it. So THEY aren't putting the authority of science over God's authority. THey are putting it over your authority.
quote: Because it is. The science fora are for scientific discussion - if you wanted to discuss whether or not science did support your religiosu beleifs then that can be discussed without assuming that your religious beliefs are true (indeed such arguments must not rely on that assumption because to do so would be to beg the question). Thus there is a valid reason for the exclusion.
quote: I disagree it is a good eample of both the failure of YEC methodology and as an example of the fact that YECs are strongly interested in defending their own beliefs even when the Bible is not directly relevant.The simple fact is that you lack even a basic understanding of our own argument. For your argument to work it must be possible for multiple individals to have the same allele - but a mutation only affects a single copy of an allele. Therefore it cannot be the case that a single mutation will always remove an allele from the gene pool as you claim. Often it will not. The YEC methodology is all about generating excuses to avoid admitting error. And in doing so it generates more errors.
quote: Well you already knew that there would be people here who disagreed with your premises. And if you won't argue for your premises then you certainly can't expect them to change their minds.
quote: Well I am pointing out that the public claims of YECs are not entirely accurate. It is for instance true that the people you accuse of rejecting God's authoirty are in fact rejecting your authority, not God's. It is also true that YECs are prepared to argue against the Bible - I've seen them do it. So I take any claims about YECs primary concern being the defence of the Bible with more than a pinch of salt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I beleive that the answer is a clear "no"
Faiths worldview does not permit debate of these issues as she keeps telling us. Therefore it cannot be adopted if we want a fair debate. If Faith's beliefs were true then the evidence should support them regardless of which of the two worldviews were adopted. If the evidence is against her then she should lose a fair debate. If it is not then she has no need to appeal to a clash of worldviews. Here too we see no evidence of real unfairness. If it is really a clash of worldviews then Faith should be argung for her worldview. She refuses to do so. This too is not a sign of unfairness in the debate. So how can Faith claim that the debate is "tilted" against her unfairly ? (Because if it is not unfair - if the debate is tilted against her because of the weakness of her case - she can have no valid complaint).t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: OK. How can you claim that you take the authority of the Bible as absolute when you deny that the Bible means what it says until you find a commentary that authorises you to believe otherwise ? http://EvC Forum: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms? -->EvC Forum: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?
quote: http://EvC Forum: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms? -->EvC Forum: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?
quote: http://EvC Forum: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms? -->EvC Forum: Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?
quote:.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yet another example of the creationist reliance on misrepresentation. In fact my post is about the question of the REAL presuppositions underlying the creationist viewpoint - as subject you specifically asked about. As to your answers 1) Your choice of commentaries only supports my point. You choose commentaries based on whether they agree with your beliefs about the Bible. 2) My point does not rely on any genuine difficulties in Isaiah 7. It is quite clear that: a) The birth of the child is a sign that the fulfilment of the main events of the prophecy will take place in the next few years (they wil be fulfilled before the child is old enough to "know to refuse evil and choose good" (7:15-16 NASB) b) It doesn't really take that much knowledge of history or the Bible to know that the context of the events makes sense for the time of Ahaz (because they are current events) but not for the time of Jesus (when neither Aram, Israel nor Assyria exist). Especially when 7:8 ("Ephraim") says that Israel will be destroyed within 65 years.e
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Excpet of course that this is badly misleading. The archaeologist has more in common with the scientist - the archaeologist is not looking to force the evidence to fit into his preconcieved beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Is the YEC presupposition based on the authority of God or on the authority of YEC doctrine ?
If it is based on the authority of God then what God did or did not say is open to question, as is the interpretation of what God said. In short there is certainly room for discussion WITHOUT denying the authority of God. Indeed there is even room for scientific evidence in such a discussion since we should hesitate to attribute a statement to God if the statement is strognly contradicted with the scientific evidence. Nobody who really worships God would want to put False claims in His mouth. If on the other hand the YEC presupposition is that God DID say certain things then the YEC doctrine is being held up as the real authority. If this is the case then YECs should have the honsty to admit that their presupposition is not primarily based on God'a authority. t
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I am going to explain it as it appears to me.
Firstly as we all knww archaeologists don't need to do digs because they already know what they are going to find. When the enemies of archaeology do conduct digs and find out that the evidence contradicts the archaeologist the archaeologist makes up excuses to discount the evidence and insist that he was right all along. When the enemies of archaeology point out that the excuses include serious factual inaccuracies and errors of reasoning the archaeologist get angry and attacks his opponents calling them closed-minded and worse. Eventually the archaeologist insists that there cannot be a debate because his opponents insist on presuming that it is possible that she could be wrong. That IS how archaeologists behave, isn't it ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024