YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

The archaeology model was proposed as a better model for YEC thinking than the forensics model Ben had proposed, that is all. We don't have to get all perfectionistic about making it fit. It merely says that rather than start from "data" as Ben had proposed, we start from what the Bible tells us happened. We are not trying to fit in with science. We are trying to define the DIFFERENT approach of YECs which Ben has found to have a validity that usually goes unrecognized by the science sticklers. The Fall or the Flood are not a Theory but a GIVEN, that is what I have been saying. That is how a YEC takes it. These are NONNEGOTIABLES. We don't care if "Science" doesn't proceed this way. It MUST proceed this way with anything that is known to have existed but where and how is not known.OK, try a similar model to make the point clearer. Say we know that a hundred years ago a ship of a certain type sank in a certain area. This is a known, there is no doubt about it. Or a WWI plane went down in a certain region. There was a steamboat that went down in the Missouri River about 150 years ago and they had to reconstruct the changing course of the river over that period of time in order to find it. But they found it. A city that has been buried for a millennium or more is the same model merely removed farther back in time.Finding these things, starting from the knowledge that they occurred, IS science. And it is a decent model of how YECs proceed.Please let us stay focused on the objective of defining the YEC methodology in order to illuminate what YECs and other creationists experience as a stacked deck against us here at EvC.(The YEC position is the only one that reads Genesis as straight history, so I'm not sure how far the methods I'm spelling out work for other kinds of creationism, but I've ONLY been referring to YEC.)

Follow the conversation, jar, I was responding to something crashfrog said and said it appeared to be individual with him and not representative of the EvC assumption.

I didn't make it personal. You must have misread something.

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). 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.

Crash, quite seriously I have had no intention of saying anything personal so if I SEEM to have it was unintentional.

I'm saying that THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR ARGUING THE PREMISE, and that's ALL I'm saying. On this thread we are trying to DEFINE the methodology of YEC. We can argue for and against it elsewhere.
Cheers,
Faith

All this thread is aimed at is DEFINING the premises, not ARGUING for or against them.The YEC premise is that God's word is above science. The EvC/Evolutionist premise is Science, or the idea that scientific evidence is above God's word.The direction to go from here is not into debating the merits of these premises, but into trying to understand why the scientific debates at EvC go the way they do, why they are so frustrating, why they make real debate impossible here if they do (and I think they do), understanding what kinds of thinking follow from these premises, what different things we are trying to accomplish, etc. etc. etc.It may be that other creationists would not say that the inviolability of the word of God is their rock-bottom premise too. This may be the premise only for YECs and other premises need to be elucidated. I don't know how ID would define its premises for instance. Would they say they follow the word of God but merely interpret it differently from YECs or what?

I've been consistent in defining only the YEC position, and of course OEC is not valid according to YEC. The YEC premise is hard enough to keep in focus it seems. But as I just said in my last post or two, there are other creationist premises to consider as well.

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. Disregarding your evolutionism-biased spin, I agree. YEC will never yield on the principle that God's word is the ultimate and final authority. We're way past this point. This has been tried. We're trying to understand why it doesn't work. The humility taught by Christianity begins with the recognition that God is the ultimate authority and there is nothing but pride in arguing with God. You are not following the discussion. I am not making any demands. I am pointing out that evolutionists are, however, making the demand that creationists submit to science as the final authority, although God is our final authority. Certainly you SHOULD submit to this principle as all human beings owe God this recognition of His authority, but I am not demanding it, merely showing the nature of the conflict.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 08:12 AM

Probably not, but this would need discussion beyond the limits of this current topic.From the beginning I've referred only to the YEC position. It's up to others to introduce differing positions.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 08:38 AM

Yes, and something along these lines did get proposed earlier on I think. But this topic is really aimed at the problems in the science debates rather than the faith debates, and there the YEC premise that the Bible is God's word and that science must be subordinated to it is most likely not going to be accepted by anyone for even one thread. This illustrates the basic conflict between the different premises and different methodologies for approaching scientific questions.

OK in a sense I have done this, and perhaps I have forgotten all the turns in the discussion, but I believe it's been more a rhetorical point to illustrate the contrast with the science premise that DOES demand that I submit God's authority to the authority of science, and I counter, no, I will no longer accept the EvC science premise, my premise is to be respected here. I know it won't be, however, so the point is academic. I didn't follow that discussion and you aren't telling me enough to understand what Buzsaw was trying to do. Mutations DON'T increase genetic VARIABILITY -- that's the word I used, not "variation" -- of course they add a variation, but variability has to do with the number of alleles available and all mutation does is add one -- and since it eliminates one to add one we could argue that it doesn't increase anything at all, it merely introduces a change at that point, and the overall variABILITY is unchanged. Then when the new allele is selected by one of the "mechanisms of evolution" we arrive at the situation of REDUCED genetic variABILITY. Your denigrating language takes this discussion to a very low level, Paul. I didn't say one word about "the doctrines of the Church." My standard is the Bible, not the "church." And you are wrong, humility is submitting to God rather than to man and what you are proposing is the very opposite, and again your language is beneath the proper tone for this discussion. Sorry, my beliefs are quite consistent with the thread of gospel teaching back to Christ, and they are true to the Bible within the range of expectable human error. The Bible is God's word and respecting His word is of utmost importance to Him. The pride is all on the side of those who put Science above Him.In any case your point is a red herring because I am sure you are not proposing that there is ANY interpretation of God's word that you would be willing to put above Science.

Yes, that sounds like a fair assessment of what I'm saying. Thanks.

I have no idea what you are talking about Crash, sorry.

Would you please refer to where you think I did that as I honestly do not have a clue, Crash.