YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

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

The question is not whether you agree with OEC but whether you can accept OECs as "Bible-Believers"

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

It might be if you set up ahead of the discussion what the assumptions are going to be for a given debate. One might say, in the following debate we are going to assume that God exists and that the Bible, every bit of it, is the literal word of God.Then you could have various debates. For example, you could debate about what the word "literal" means. In point of fact, we've done that. Your view, I believe, is that one can figure out if some passage is literal by the context.Or we could have a debate about the nature of God. It's all going to have to be Bible-centered, however. But if someone doesn't believe in God and wants to argue that, such a position would be clearly out of court in this particular debate.So all you have to do is state what the assumptions are going to be ahead of time, and we can debate it.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2005 07:42 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.

Then my point is confirmed.

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.

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.

Ok, I got it. What you are saying is that this is supposed to be a forum where one debates whether or not evolution is true, but that the science forums automatically assume that evolution is true by the fact that they demand the poster accept what are considered well-established scientific facts. (As regards cutting-edge science, that is another matter). So if you make some comment, say, about how the stratigraphy of the earth has been traditionally misinterpreted, this will automatically be considered out of court.

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.