YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

How do you think that it's not personal when you speculate about my motives or attempt to draw conclusions about my mental state, or the way in which I come to conclusions?

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

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.

So they should just say in the guidelines for the science forums, "to debate on these forums, one must accept the validity of well-established scientific facts, such as that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution of life forms in some sense occurred, although the details of how evolution occurred are of course debatable. If you wish to argue a YEC viewpoint, go to the faith forums."

OK, let's try to sort this out. You support your premise with the same kinds of evidence that the premise asserts. That is, the premise is that Science determines all and in case after case you have USED the methods of science to good effect and therefore validated your principle.But when it comes to MY premise, it is not a scientific premise, it is not amenable to scientific proofs, but you are judging it BY your scientific standards, which is exactly what keeps happening at EvC, which is exactly what I'm trying to shed some light on in this thread. Your standards prove your own premise to your satisfaction but the same standards are not applicable to my premise. My premise is that God has spoken and His authority is over all scientific considerations. This premise cannot be validated by scientific means, but only by constant living in its assumptions. It can only be known by revelation. Therefore I can't PROVE it to you, only to myself by constant living in it, and others who live in it know what I am talking about.[ABE: If your idea that I'm addressing you in some personal way comes from my use of the "you" as in the above paragraphs, which just occurred to me, let me correct that impression by saying that I'm using it more in a generic sense, using "you" to represent the evolutionist point of view. Since you personally may not share everything I'm imputing to that view I guess this may be backfiring, but that is what I intend. There is nothing personal about it. I'm simply trying to characterize the Science side of the debate and you are its representative when I am discussing it with you.]The scientific mindset always wants to apply its own standards to this but they simply do not apply. We are talking about two entirely different frames of reference or worldviews. To state it again, and you personally may not completely share this but it does represent the scientific position we run into at EvC, Science is given authority over the word of God, while to us God has authority over science.Yet our belief in God's primary authority does not in any way preclude the operations of science, it merely states the starting point. We know God made humanity with no predecessors because His word shows this to be the case. We know there was a Fall from grace with God that has crucial ramifications for the understanding of the human condition both before and after the event. We know there was a worldwide Flood because God said so. Valid science can proceed from such knowns or givens, but since the givens are not shared by today's science, and in fact are assumed to have been discredited by science, we are in constant conflict with today's science.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 10:53 AM

How can valid science proceed from unproven premisis?I mean, I could take the world view that a giant elephant farted out all the great forests in the world, and proceed from that premis. Can I do valid work this way?Can I choose any arbitrary premiss and proceed scientificaly from that point?

I start to get it. The premise you're challenging is not evolution, or any evolutionary belief; you're challenging the fact that the inductive conclusions of science can only be supported inductively.Well, ok. That's a well-known problem in the philosophy of science. Scientific conclusions are inductive - that is, are generalized from a plurality of specific cases - and the only evidence that induction as a method is valid is itself inductive - that is, it's always worked before. In other words, the proof is circular.Sure. Circular. Of course, just because a proof is circular doesn't mean that it doesn't describe something true, only that the argument in support of it is not valid. At some point, you either accept the inductive truth that science gets results, or you don't. But you don't get to pick and choose - you can't say that inductive results about chemistry or electronics, for instance, are valid, but results about natural history are not.It's all or nothing. Either you accept the power of the inductive method to generate accurate models of the universe, or you don't. But there's no intellectual consistency in saying "I accept induction as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible." Well, yes, I do. Because scientific standards are how I discern truth from lies. Your position doesn't meet that standard of truth, and therefore I conclude that it is a lie. EvC exists, as plainly stated by its founder and creator, to judge creationist views acccording to scientific standards.This has never been hidden from you, Faith. Everybody accepts it, it's a plainly open condition of posting here. So, again, what's the problem? If you don't like the rule, why do you post here? Do you really think we're going to change the rules just for you? More than we already have, I mean. So exactly what dialogue do you suppose is possible between us? You'll never accept my standards of proof; I'll never accept yours. I post here because this forum conforms to my standards (and I to its), I don't post at Christian forums because I can't accept their standards.So why do you come back here to post? And why are you always focus on the boring topic of telling us all about a rule we already know? Do you really think we're going to change it? Doing so wouldn't produce a dialogue; it would simply be evolutionists presenting scientific proof and creationists presenting Bible verses. What kind of debate is that?

I shouldn't have to prove this at all, it's obvious. Over and over at EvC the claim is made that the Flood has been soundly proved never to have occurred, just for one instance. This submits God's authority, which says it did occur, to the authority of science. Over and over we are told that any reference to the Bible as authority is out of place on the science forums.Leave the mutations bit out of this. It is not applicable. It is another subject. And your nasty attitude is very wearying and inappropriate.I am not asking you to believe anything. I am merely declaring my premise and how it is treated at EvC. I am representing the viewpoint of YECs correctly, and all your arguments about this or that interpretation are irrelevant. You know very well that what I am saying does fairly represent the YEC position and that's all I'm talking about.

Nor should YECs post at EvC then, but EvC wants YECs to post here, and EvC appears to offer the possibility of fair debate, but when you examine the actual conditions involved, the fact that the evolutionist premises are taken as gospel, it becomes clear this cannot happen. Spelling this out is what I am doing on this thread, and pretty clearly it seems to me, so that your still not getting it is a puzzle.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 11:20 AM

Once again, this thread is not in the business of arguing the validity of the premises.But to answer you, NO. My premise derives from the authority of God. Whether you believe in it or not is irrelevant.

Yes, that's about it. In principle we are supposedly allowed to question evolution, but in practice it turns out we must accept all its tenets and conclusions or we're not being scientific.

Sorry, maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't arguing the validity of your premiss, I was pointing out that any arbitrary premiss is as valid as yours.I can choose any premiss I want and construct a cohesive, internaly consistent, world view. It dosn't matter how absurd, or illogical the premiss may be. I can do this and have something equally valid to your YEC model.My question is simply If I can have a world view of equal value and equal absurdity as yours, which one do you choose?

This is a debate between evolutionism and creationism. The premise of young earth creationism is established. You are pretending that just because you don't believe in it all premises are equal. That's nonsense.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 11:29 AM

Has it? Well, I beg to differ! I would go with Hindu Old Earth Creationism where we have been in a cycle of death and rebirth for the last 5 billion years. And you are saying: Because you DO belive in it, you premiss is better than all the others.Basicaly you are saying "I am right, because I belive I am right." It's tautalogical thinking.I can say the same thing about my elephant fart hypothesis "It is true becaue I belive it is true." Does that not sound silly to you?

Good grief. It is established, meaning it is clear what YECs believe. It has a history, a precedent, a consensus.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-22-2005 11:39 AM