YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

So we've established the two different premises. Excellent, the debate is moving forward.

quote:

---

So what? If the Flood occurred, it occurred, period, and since God's word said it did, it did. But I'm surprised to see you claim it would involve "the death of" plate tectonics and volcanic action as these are usually considered to have been inaugurated by the Flood catastrophe and discussed as part of the YEC speculations about it.

---

Well, I am speculating on the implications of the YEC premise. Are we including these implications in the debate? It seems those of the scientific premise are already being discussed, i.e. that your god is automatically excluded from scientific study.

quote:

---

But the Flood happened. That puts you in the odd position of claiming that false science does a better job of stimulating scientific work than true science. I suppose it might be true. Perhaps some benefits could be credited to the false theory of evolution that otherwise would not have occurred. Stranger things have happened, but it is not much of an argument for holding on to a false theory.

---

I do not make such a claim, as I am not a YEC. As far as I'm concerned, evolution is simply a theory like any other. But this is essentially off topic, so let's leave it alone.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I do not think I missed any crucial points. In fact, I think there has been a slight disconnect on this point in particular.
I do not think anyone asks for the bible itself to be subjected to the scientific method. It's a book; what exactly are scientists supposed to do with it? No, I think there is a different matter on hand here - that of faulty science based on the bible.

---

​

All you are doing is simply stating once again the evo premise (Science trumps the word of God) and continuing the debate instead of appreciating the overview we are looking for on this thread.

---

An overview? Really.I provided the start of such an overview by offering the basic definitions of both premises. I was trying to explain here that it is not the bible that is under attack; merely the faulty science developed in a sorry attempt to support it. I am not debating anything, just trying to clarify what exactly you mean when you say "the bible is under attack".

quote:

---

You are so convinced of your presuppositions you have a problem standing back from them and seeing them in the overall context here. Science is your premise and science trumps the Bible.

---

My only presupposition, and that of other scientists like me, is that there is a knowable explanation for everything. How exactly does this prevent me from seeing it in the overall context? Please explain this assertation. It seems obvious to me; we are discussing the fundamental clash between this presupposition and the presupposition of YEC (that the bible cannot be wrong even if science declares it is).

quote:

---

Mine is that God's word is inviolable, God has spoken, we may not contradict Him. You can't see my premise at all. The Bible most certainly IS subjected to Science here. If you read this thread, IRH, you did not grasp much on it, which I find rather astonishing since I do think I was very clear.

---

I described your premise in my own words, and you agreed that I was correct in my description. And now, all of a sudden, I can't "see" your premise? What exactly are you suggesting here? You are not making yourself clear in this respect.Alright, let's take a look at this idea, of the bible being subjected to science. You were not being clear as to what exactly you meant by your statement, so I was left to draw my own conclusions. You seem to suggest that it's somehow a personal vendetta of scientists and evolutionists in particular to dispute the bible, and this is what I felt I needed to correct.Now, if by your statement you actually meant that the bible is subjected to science because:a) faulty science produced based on the bible is being challenged here, or
b) the scientific implications of the bible are challenged, thus essentially disproving the bible,well then, we can agree on that statement because it is simply a difference in interpretations. If this is actually what you meant, then I will admit clearly that yes, the bible is under attack here.

quote:

---

Yes, well my aim is to see if the FUNDAMENTAL processes that are involved in this can be illuminated and spelled out. Certainly there is bad scientific thinking on the YEC side (and no doubt the evo side as well). Certainly on both sides there is every degree of scientific understanding, of faith and lack of it and theological difficulties galore to be taken into account if we are thinking about individuals. But I'm trying to boil this down to the pithiest statement of the most basic conflict between YEC and evolutionism. I am sticking to YEC too because all the other versions of creationism only muddy the picture for this purpose. Between YEC and Evolutionism I think the conflict is most neatly stated as between the Evo premise that the word of God is to be subject to science and the YEC premise that science is to be subject to the word of God.

---

So, you are trying to boil down the fundamental difference between these two premises. I have already provided a statement to that effect - that science assumes a knowable "good-enough" explanation someday, and YECism assumes an indisputable perfect explanation right now.Is this a correct summary of the differences or not? Please elaborate on how you would personally describe the differences.

quote:

---

What I have been running into, and your response is a good example of it, is that the scientific premise is so taken for granted that it isn't even recognized as a premise. This is part of the picture this thread aims to spell out as it explains why YECs can't breathe in this environment at times.

---

My response was a description of the two premises of science and YECism. I may personally take the scientific premise for granted, but I have been here long enough to know that creationists do not, so I took the time to spell both out in as clear terms as possible. So again, I'm not entirely sure how you think my post, describing the scientific premise, is an example of someone not recognising the scientific premise.Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, or we're using different definitions.

quote:

---

Yes, I'm sure that some of the problem comes down to Creationists thinking this game can be played on scientific principles alone, not having recognized the effect of the fundamental conflict between the basic presuppositions on both sides.

---

Quoted for truth.

quote:

---

You can test the theory of gravity, you cannot test evolutionism, all you can do is feed it data, very little of which actually supports the theory but is merely absorbed into the theory as if it did. It may be science in the sense that it derived from scientific thinking, certainly, but it is false science because evolution did not happen and the Flood did.

---

Your assertation that evolution is not science was off-topic, if we are discussing the premises of science and creationism. But as a simple exercise, let's take it as an example of both premises.In the scientific premise, the onus is on you to defend the statement "evolution is false science" because evolution is an accepted part of science. This naturally requires use of the scientific methodology.In the creationist premise, the statement "evolution is false science" is immediately defended by the idea that no true science can contradict the bible. So there are only two options - modify evolution or discard it as erroneous.

quote:

---

And again you merely state the evo premise which is that science trumps God. God says if you want to argue for something upon which He has spoken, you must play by His rules. No, I DON'T have to play by science rules if they contradict God.

---

I think I am beginning to understand what exactly you are trying to say, although I don't think you've been exactly clear about how to say it. I apologise for my aside in my previous post, disregard it for the moment.We have these two premises, the scientific one and the creationist one. We have established that there is a fundamental clash between them.If you are trying to say that the evolutionists here are arguing from the scientific premise, you are correct. I myself have been arguing from that same premise.Creationists are arguing from the creationist premise, which you have been all along. The massive clash occurs where evolutionists demand something relevent or related to the scientific premise, and creationists respond with something relevent or related to the creationist premise. Naturally, neither side accepts the offerings of their opponents because they are diametrically opposed in this basic context - hence the results we see on EvCForum.So, let's examine this more closely. We accept that due to this clash, there is not likely to be a common ground on which to base a debate. So why debate here at all? Where do we go from here?Let me think on this, I'll post later.{edited to fix quote box}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 11-23-2005 02:26 PM

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

quote:

---

As I've said, I suggest that it has most in common with the archaeological model, discovering the evidence of something you know on excellent authority occurred in the past -- and our authority is better than most archaeology works with.

---

How would you feel about describing it in a step-wise manner? As in describing each consecutive step in the methodology, and what happens to a hypothesis or idea during the course of the methodology.The clarification is important, in my opinion. I will of course do the same for the scientific methodology if needed.

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

Glad you finally noticed. [ABE: But this is not intended to be a debate but to delineate an overview of The Debate]. But IRH, are we communicating at all? If the Flood scenario includes tectonic and volcanic activity your notion of the implications of YECism is wrong. But you missed the point, as the Bible IS under attack by the very theory of evolution itself. Sorry if I misconstrued the idea of a "knowable explanation" in scientific terms. This would include the presupposition that science judges the Bible. If this is not what you meant, please explain. Yes, but I don't see a point to this statement. You argued from the science presupposition against the YEC presupposition along the usual lines which is engaging the debate instead of standing back from it. I've done this too, particularly in answer to statements from the Evo perspective. Maybe it confuses things. I was speaking from the YEC point of view, which I should no doubt avoid as I'm asking you to avoid simply speaking from the evo point of view, but from the YEC point of view, science's willingness to embrace a theory that contradicts God's word is a direct dispute with God. Not a vendetta, just the usual expression of fallen human nature that fights with God all the time, here in scientific form. But it's not part of the overview I'm after so let's drop it. No, such scientific concerns are merely rationalizations. It starts with human hubris in the willingness to oppose God by proposing a theory that contradicts His word, period. It is the willingness to subject the word of God to such scientific criticisms that is the evo premise in operation. YECism is NOT assuming an indisputable perfect explanation of anything. I did think I answered this idea. If it isn't clear to you I don't see any point in continuing to argue it. Let's just drop it. Very possibly. The YEC premise answers you that the onus is on you to defend the hubris of science in daring to contradict God's word and subordinate it to merely human speculation. Yes. Perhaps we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel now. Which I was trying to get across is out of bounds in this thread since the thread is looking to specify the premises that are always argued from here. Yes. You're getting it. And I'd add that arguing from this premise is also out of bounds on this thread, but I do it for the symmetry of showing my own premise in answer to my opponent's argument from his. Yes, well stated, and this clash is ALWAYS happening here. Exactly. I've proposed that the debate is a complete sham because of this clash [ABE: and especially the aggressive enforcement of the premise of the evo side of it.]Looking forward to your view of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-23-2005 12:01 PM

I will ponder trying to describe the method in a step-wise manner as you ask, but at the moment I'm more interested in sticking to the delineation of the irreconcilable premises that seems finally to be getting some recognition, as I would really like to see this clearly established in people's minds by the end of this thread if possible.I'd comment, however, that since creationism is on the defensive, always in the position of trying to answer something evolutionism has come up with, a step-wise methodology is possibly not describable at this time.But maybe it is. I will think about it.

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 ?

Sorry to butt in Faith, but if you got time I'd be interested in your view to this question. Not for debate, just your view.http://EvC Forum: Pauls Contradiction? -->EvC Forum: Pauls Contradiction?

I saw the thread, Ian, but I'm not up to taking that one on at this time. I think I agree that it's mostly cultural about headcovering but the argument to that point can be tedious, and what KIND of speaking is the question in the other. If the thread is still there when I have more time to give to it, I'll see if I have anything to contribute then.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-23-2005 12:19 PM

An evolutionist parody of supposed creationist methodology is not what I was looking for.How many times has this been done to death and then some? Just leave it alone here. I would like Faith to describe what she, as a creationist, would use as a methodology - not what an evolutionist thinks she would use.

quote:

---

But IRH, are we communicating at all? If the Flood scenario includes tectonic and volcanic activity your notion of the implications of YECism is wrong.

---

What I essentially mean is that if we are to include tectonic and volcanic activity in the Flood scenario, plate tectonics would have to be changed to such an extent that it would necessitate an entirely new definition.It's a mild misunderstanding, I think. I fully accept that the Flood scenario be definition must include tectonic and volcanic activity of some description.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was trying to explain here that it is not the bible that is under attack; merely the faulty science developed in a sorry attempt to support it. I am not debating anything, just trying to clarify what exactly you mean when you say "the bible is under attack".

---

​

But you missed the point, as the Bible IS under attack by the very theory of evolution itself.

---

That would be included in case (b) in my previous post, as it is a branch of science that directly contradicts the scientific implications of the bible.

quote:

---

Sorry if I misconstrued the idea of a "knowable explanation" in scientific terms. This would include the presupposition that science judges the Bible. If this is not what you meant, please explain.

---

I simply mean that the explanation can be fully understood by humans, as opposed to a divine explanation that is partly unknown and unknowable. The presupposition to judge the bible on scientific grounds is there, in same sense that science can judge anything on scientific grounds.

quote:

---

Yes, but I don't see a point to this statement.

---

You stated "You are so convinced of your presuppositions you have a problem standing back from them and seeing them in the overall context here." I didn't understand what exactly you were trying to say, so I clarified my own idea of what we were discussing here.

quote:

---

You argued from the science presupposition against the YEC presupposition along the usual lines which is engaging the debate instead of standing back from it. I've done this too, particularly in answer to statements from the Evo perspective. Maybe it confuses things.

---

Thank you for the clarification. If we can both agree to step aside from the presuppositions for a moment, we might actually have an interesting topic here.I'm game if you are.

quote:

---

No, such scientific concerns are merely rationalizations. It starts with human hubris in the willingness to oppose God by proposing a theory that contradicts His word, period.

---

I find this particular dualism interesting. Observe:The evo says: "the scientific implications of the bible are challenged, thus essentially disproving the bible".The creo says: "science opposes God by proposing a theory that contradicts His word".It's approaching the same area - the bible under attack - from completely different directions. Fascinating.

quote:

---

YECism is NOT assuming an indisputable perfect explanation of anything. I did think I answered this idea.

---

It assumes an indisputable perfect explanation of the Flood, no? Whereas science says the explanation of the Flood is... {insert whatever argument against the Flood you like best here}.Anything in the bible cannot be disputed, yes? Therefore there are explanations of how things happened in the past that cannot be disputed. They are what I am referring to in this respect. (I understand that there are some areas of science not in conflict, but they are essentially unimportant here - they operate under normal scientific methdology.)In any case - describe the differences yourself, as you see them. Remember I can only describe them from a scientist's point of view.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your assertation that evolution is not science was off-topic, if we are discussing the premises of science and creationism. But as a simple exercise, let's take it as an example of both premises.

​

In the scientific premise, the onus is on you to defend the statement "evolution is false science" because evolution is an accepted part of science. This naturally requires use of the scientific methodology.

---

​

The YEC premise answers you that the onus is on you to defend the hubris of science in daring to contradict God's word and subordinate it to merely human speculation.

​

quote:

---

In the creationist premise, the statement "evolution is false science" is immediately defended by the idea that no true science can contradict the bible. So there are only two options - modify evolution or discard it as erroneous.

---

​

Yes.

---

I wasn't intending this as something you had to answer - I'm merely illustrating the difference between the scientific and YEC premises. However I suspect your answer is closer to the YEC premise than my description.

quote:

---

The massive clash occurs where evolutionists demand something relevent or related to the scientific premise, and creationists respond with something relevent or related to the creationist premise.

​

Naturally, neither side accepts the offerings of their opponents because they are diametrically opposed in this basic context - hence the results we see on EvCForum.

---

From my previous post. I think we agree that this is the crucial disconnect between the two premises. We can continue the discussion from this.

quote:

---

I've proposed that the debate is a complete sham because of this clash [ABE: and especially the aggressive enforcement of the premise of the evo side of it.]

---

The problem here is that EvCForum is a science forum at heart.People here, including myself, have pointed out that many creationists produce faulty science based on the bible (with the implication that they are operating from the scientific premise as a result). EvCForum is supposed to be a board where this science is discussed, hence the enforcement of the scientific premise.That said, I'm getting tired of this constant pile-on of evolutionists. I happen to think that there is more to EvCForum than arguing science. From the homepage - "Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate". We can't exactly do this if no debate is allowed within the creationist perspective. Remember the previous thread I started solely for the purpose of allowing you to develop your ideas, that got swamped in a matter of microseconds by every evolutionist here? My personal opinion is that creationism is wrong - but this is no excuse not to allow the other side of the debate to at least develop their ideas!Again, most creationists do not have your strength of faith. They do actually think that science alone will vindicate the bible, operating from the scientific premise. Because this type of creationist exists, I think the debate is essentially worthwhile.{edited to correct spelling and quote boxes}This message has been edited by IrishRockhound, 11-23-2005 07:53 PM

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

It is impossible to guess what WOULD be the case if creationism were the reigning paradigm instead of evolutionism, but it doesn't seem to me that anything about tectonics would necessarily be different. The Flood description doesn't in itself hint at it so it would probably have been discovered just the way it was discovered, quite recently, only explained differently, without the old earth concepts at least, and in terms of whatever physics Flood geology had come up with. OK Well I didn't recognize it in the post when I read it, but now the post isn't in front of me to see how I did read it, so I can't comment. Well, this IS definitely from the Evo Science frame of reference, but I have to question this idea that there is anything inherently "unknown or unknowable" about the Flood or the Creation accounts in the Bible. They are spare with the facts but there is enough to generate quite a bit of scientific thought. And what makes it a "divine explanation" exactly? Nothing about its content, merely the fact that it is part of God's revealed word to us. As to content they are presented as simple physical facts, not at all beyond the realm of knowledge or science in any way, but in fact solid grounding for the pursuit of knowledge in biology and geology -- because the revealer is eminently trustworthy. You reject it because you reject its authorship by God, but there's nothing IN PRINCIPLE about it that makes it different from any other kind of information given by someone who is in a position to know. *** Cough cough *** Um, seems to me I'd been doing a pretty good job of this very thing well before you joined the thread. Nice to see you are beginning to appreciate the fearful symmetry of my formulation of the opposing premises but you aren't quite there yet. Still too much of the evo presupposition hanging around I'm afraid. It does make a beautiful parallel in fact, when stated properly: For the Evo it's Science rules and the Bible is subject to science. For the YEC it's God's word rules and Science is subject to God's word. In other words, your comparison fails to take into account that science is no less challenged by God's word than God's word is by Science -- shades of your abiding assumption that science IS more authoritative than God I would imagine. The physical details given in the Bible are scant enough that the idea of a "perfect explanation" in connection with the Flood just hits me as very odd. It is merely a given around which information about the earth can be collected, and it is a solid anchor point of fact that can't be falsified, but there's nothing "perfect" about it. It's the barest hint of a beginning.As for what science says in return ... the YEC may just have managed to get half a thought about the implications of the Flood put into words when a dogpile of the science-minded begin accumulating supposed objections to it from any number of scientific arenas, all speculative of course since NOBODY KNOWS MUCH about what happened. These objections may involve depth of water, height of mountains, velocity and mass of meteors, temperature, or anything else, ALL SPECULATIVE with nary an actual KNOWN FACT in the mix. But despite its highly speculative nature, it will all be followed by demands that they be answered with the same degree of scientific understanding, followed by accusations of all kinds of miscreancy for both real and imagined failure to do so. I couldn't possibly find a favorite in the crowd. Why are you using the term "explanations?" The Flood isn't an "explanation," it's an event. Same with the Creation. But yes, the Bible cannot be disputed. Different interpretations of meaning may be relevant, but the Flood account is pretty unambiguous for that to apply. Yes, the points of conflict are all we are talking about. But sometime, just as a mental exercise, stop and consider the incredible hubris of mere humanity telling God He is wrong. Just as a mental exercise. Not sure what exactly you have in mind here. I think I've been doing this all along. Well, of course, that is what I'm trying to get codified in my formulation of the Evo Premise, that is, that Science Rules, and Science trumps God's word, and this is the reason they cannot make room for the YEC point of view here or any version of creationism that has the opposing Presmise that puts God's word above evolutionism. God Rules and God's word trumps Science. The point that I am trying to make in this thread, IRH, is that the enforcement of the scientific premise a priori disqualifies the creationist premise, and makes debate impossible. As long as God's revelation is considered to be subject to Science there is no debate, merely the assertion over and over again of the Evo Premise. I'm WAY less interested in developing the creationist point of view than in REALLY getting someone to see these premises in diametric conflict and see them as the reason the debate can't really happen. You are sort of getting it but sort of not getting it. It is hard to break free of such a long-established habit of thinking that you believe with such dedication and step back from it long enough to see it against its opposing premise. Why? They have a faulty idea. What's the value in defeating somebody who is simply misguided? What do you prove that way?

It's not a parody. It's even generous in that I could honestly describe the creationist argument style as actually being worse.Even Faith says that creationists will not change their minds no matter what the physical evidence is. e

Hi Faith. I was hoping you would return and hoping Randman will stay on as poster abd moderator.My premise is based on the Genesis account. However, there's quite a significant difference in my interpretation of what is written and the majority YEC view of creationists as has been noted in my previous statement.My problems with this board which got me suddenly banned twice, for the most part, came about due to my contention that Biblical ID creationism as per my hypothesis can be debated to some extent with scientists. My first experiment as to how this would work via the great debate with Jar on the thermodynamic laws relative to my hypothesis, imo did very well, as did the 300 plus thread which followed. Shortly after that I was banned, but it appears that Percy is rethinking insomuch that he has allowed me to return and it appears there will be more opportunity for folks like us to present our arguments to a reasonable extent. I applaud him for that.My hypothesis is such that my counterparts have more of a debate on their hands, being I'm not YEC. Imo, YECs have a big, big problem, especially those who believe the whole universe is a mere few thousand years old. They have the problem that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, i.e. creating things and managing an eternal universe as he is eternal, imo, calling for eternal activity, as gods are suppose to do.As for the geological column and tetonics, I've done some debating on that, arguing that the preflood earth was relatively smooth as compared to post flood when the flood waters warped the crust, sinking the thin crust areas causing much of what is observed. Then too, there was the original creation event when God's Holy Spirit moved on the waters to separate the waters from the dry ground, et al. The preflood atmosphere being radically different factors in too. I hope this answers your question.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Isn't that exactly what I'd been agreeing with?Or is that why you stopped replying? Because we agreed? I guess I'd still like to know why you post here when you're so certain debate can't happen. Perhaps you'd like EvC to make some concession in the rules to your position, but I don't see what kind of concession is possible. If a challenge of scientific evidence is met by a statement of the Bible, what kind of debate is that? We're reduced to glaring at each other from across the river instead of putting our ideas into conflict.

quote:

---

Well, this IS definitely from the Evo Science frame of reference, but I have to question this idea that there is anything inherently "unknown or unknowable" about the Flood or the Creation accounts in the Bible. They are spare with the facts but there is enough to generate quite a bit of scientific thought. And what makes it a "divine explanation" exactly? Nothing about its content, merely the fact that it is part of God's revealed word to us. As to content they are presented as simple physical facts, not at all beyond the realm of knowledge or science in any way, but in fact solid grounding for the pursuit of knowledge in biology and geology -- because the revealer is eminently trustworthy. You reject it because you reject its authorship by God, but there's nothing IN PRINCIPLE about it that makes it different from any other kind of information given by someone who is in a position to know.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Flood was an act of the Christian god. Seeing as I'm told the nature of this god is unknowable, it seems a reasonable conclusion that part of the explanation - the part that says "god did this" - is unknowable and can never be known or even understood by mere humans. Hence my conclusion about the YEC explanation, which by definition will include some parts that say "god did this".

quote:

---

Nice to see you are beginning to appreciate the fearful symmetry of my formulation of the opposing premises but you aren't quite there yet. Still too much of the evo presupposition hanging around I'm afraid.

---

Where exactly? And how is this different from your statements regarding the bible?

quote:

---

It does make a beautiful parallel in fact, when stated properly: For the Evo it's Science rules and the Bible is subject to science. For the YEC it's God's word rules and Science is subject to God's word. In other words, your comparison fails to take into account that science is no less challenged by God's word than God's word is by Science -- shades of your abiding assumption that science IS more authoritative than God I would imagine.

---

But I was not making a comparison. I was merely showing how two sides approach the same idea from vastly different directions.You say I am still labouring under the presupposition that science trumps the bible. However, from your tone it is clear you are still labouring under the presupposition that the bible trumps science. So, I have done my best to move away from my presupposition in order to move this discussion forward - and you have agreed that I am in some way succeeding - I only ask that you do the same.Would you like me to present specific quotes from your posts to demonstrate that this is indeed the case? Example:"The Flood isn't an "explanation," it's an event. Same with the Creation. But yes, the Bible cannot be disputed. Different interpretations of meaning may be relevant, but the Flood account is pretty unambiguous for that to apply."You presuppose that the Flood happened. You presuppose that the Bible cannot be disputed.

quote:

---

Um, seems to me I'd been doing a pretty good job of this very thing well before you joined the thread.

---

I believe you have not. I am, of course, prepared to spend several hours reading back over the thread to support my opinion, if you require it.

quote:

---

But sometime, just as a mental exercise, stop and consider the incredible hubris of mere humanity telling God He is wrong.

---

You presuppose that your god is more worthy than humanity.

quote:

---

The point that I am trying to make in this thread, IRH, is that the enforcement of the scientific premise a priori disqualifies the creationist premise, and makes debate impossible. As long as God's revelation is considered to be subject to Science there is no debate, merely the assertion over and over again of the Evo Premise.

---

In EvCForum, yes. Like I said, I think there is room for more here than that.

quote:

---

I'm WAY less interested in developing the creationist point of view than in REALLY getting someone to see these premises in diametric conflict and see them as the reason the debate can't really happen. You are sort of getting it but sort of not getting it. It is hard to break free of such a long-established habit of thinking that you believe with such dedication and step back from it long enough to see it against its opposing premise.

---

How exactly am I not "getting it"? If a creationist holds to your premise - that science cannot ever trump the bible - then I am well aware that no debate can occur. I recognise that the scientific and creationist premises are diametrially opposed. What else is there? What exactly am I missing here?The onus is on you here to explain what exactly you feel I am missing, seeing as you have made a positive statement to that effect.

quote:

---

Why? They have a faulty idea. What's the value in defeating somebody who is simply misguided? What do you prove that way?

---

You presuppose that they are misguided, because they do not hold to the same premise as you.Nothing essentially is proved. The goal, as it were, is to defeat the faulty science.

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

.....And flood geology can be signifant, as per the Biblical record. It implies a completely different atmosphere, tetonic upheaval and large deep oceans on planet earth which present a sensible alternative interpretation premise to what is observed than what secularist science has theorize and programmed into our citizens via the educational instutions of the world.