Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1399 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 166 of 300 (262765)
11-23-2005 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
11-22-2005 7:34 AM


Re: Objective and subjective observations in our debate
Hi Faith,
I haven't forgotten your post; I've been reading your discussion with IRH, which has been interesting, and I have some notes on where there is utility in discussion (there's a lot, really!) and where there's not.
I'm still behind in my schoolwork, with two papers that are late; I'm having so much trouble getting them done. I'm hoping to get a proper response to you around Friday; tomorrow will be a visit to the San Diego Zoo and a nice dinner with my girlfriend.
I just wanted to say that I'm quite happy with the overall tone of this thread; both the overall civil nature and the focus of what's being discussed. Here's to hoping it will continue, and hoping that I'll be able to make a contribution soon.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 7:34 AM Faith has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 167 of 300 (262766)
11-23-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by randman
11-22-2005 12:03 PM


Re: Here's the joke, RM
People who simply want to promulgate their beliefs, absent any level of scientific evidence, shouldn't expect to find a welcome here.
But where would all the evos go?
Yet, how bluntly true this humor is to me. Where would all the evos go as *science authority* alone welcomes evos, even gives them kadoos, public honor, money, noble prizes, etc.?
But more blatant sarcasm may come about: for, alas, the scientific presuppositions and methodologies seem to me so fatally jilted on the evo side; that the evo-paradigm may do a 'Hitler', and kill itself one day (without any YEC help).
Perhaps some *astute politician* or world-wide-web exposure will bark how science authority is merely 'dicking around' science statements to justify itself before the public (i.e., Kansas schools) in order to keep your children unspotted from *metaphysical phenomena* or anything *unexplainable*. Then what?
I dunno, and I may be way off-topic, here, RM, but many zealous and zany *scientific* presuppositions ...seem so predictably doomed to self-extinction, given enough time and exposure...
Consider, for example, just a few fatal self-contradicting NAS statements so slanted beyond re-calibration and apparently doomed thus ... i.e., (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/):
"the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level"
...(morevover it has in its possession)
"insights from astronomy"
"evidence for the origin of the universe and Earth"
"scientific understanding of biological evolution"
"scientists UNIVERSALLY accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved (and were not ever created)"
"science theory..."
"(and) exciting discoveries ... how compounds came together to form self-replicating molecules -- the origin of life"
and numerous other perverse *evo-science paradigms and methodologies* ... seem too fragile to survive, especially after 'catastrophic awakenings' or such (if you will) drive them away.
Likewise, that macro-evolutionary science *works* at present to coordinate physician with scientist seems increasingly doubtful, too. There's simply no place for evolutionary *presuppositions and methodology* in the physician's office. ToE's really don't work in real life.
Peradventure, do you see the handwriting on the wall?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by randman, posted 11-22-2005 12:03 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by arachnophilia, posted 11-23-2005 9:14 PM Philip has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 168 of 300 (262772)
11-23-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Philip
11-23-2005 8:59 PM


godwin's law
that the evo-paradigm may do a 'Hitler', and kill itself one day (without any YEC help).
quote:
Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Although the law does not specifically mention it, there is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.
Godwin's law - Wikipedia

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Philip, posted 11-23-2005 8:59 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Nuggin, posted 11-23-2005 9:48 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 238 by Philip, posted 11-25-2005 2:44 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 169 of 300 (262779)
11-23-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by arachnophilia
11-23-2005 9:14 PM


Re: godwin's law
Yay! Godwin's Law! Good catch

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by arachnophilia, posted 11-23-2005 9:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by arachnophilia, posted 11-23-2005 9:55 PM Nuggin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 170 of 300 (262781)
11-23-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Nuggin
11-23-2005 9:48 PM


Re: godwin's law
shh, i'm waiting to use one of the corollaries...

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Nuggin, posted 11-23-2005 9:48 PM Nuggin has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 171 of 300 (262788)
11-23-2005 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by IrishRockhound
11-23-2005 7:37 PM


Re: Premise
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".
But when it comes to scientific questions, nobody is trying to prove anything about God's nature, so His unknowability is irrelevant (However, a major purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's nature to us, so we're not talking absolute unknowability anyway.)
I see absolutely NO point at which God's having brought about the Flood is of any relevance in discussions of the physical circumstances of the Flood. God causes every rainstorm, every snowstorm, every bit of weather we ever experience. God runs this entire universe. But it all nevertheless obeys physical laws He set in motion. If something doesn't obey those laws we call it a miracle and the Flood is not described as a miracle but a playing out of the existing physical conditions of the time.
So EVERYTHING is an act of God, it's just that in the case of the Flood we are privileged to have a God-inspired report on it. If the Flood is in any way "unknowable" because God is unknowable, then EVERYTHING is unknowable in the same way.
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?
Why is it so fascinating to talk only about the Bible when you could also construct the parallel points for Science?
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.
OK,I have no idea why that is so interesting to you, since certainly the same thing can be done in relation to Science. Apparently it's just a side issue.
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.
Yes I do, I'm a YEC and those are my presuppositions, and in the above I was not making a comparison but explaining the Biblical point of view. I thought you on the other hand were trying to state the opposing premises but apparently you weren't.
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.
I'd rather drop it though from my point of view I had been keeping my objective in mind as well as I thought even possible under the circumstances. I reiterated the two premises quite clearly many times and I haven't seen that your contribution adds much. I'm merely glad that to some extent you seem to be open to what I'm trying to do and grasping what I'm doing, and while I appreciate your engaging in the discussion I don't see that you've done much with it. I DO have an objective here and I've been pursuing it quite consistently considering the various interlocutors who have wanted me to answer from various angles on it.
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.
Absolutely. He made humanity. This is my presupposition, absolutely. I am asking you to do the mental exercise of thinking like a YEC on this point. No big deal, drop it.
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.
As I've said, I'd be content to get just one concept pinned down and I'm not convinced that it is.
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.
I'd rather drop it, drop anything that creates contention and bickering. It is not worth it.
You presuppose that they are misguided, because they do not hold to the same premise as you.
You are the one who said they didn't have as much faith as I have. I consider that a fault.
But again I'm tired of this for now, as it is becoming bickering.
Maybe tomorrow we can resume this from a fresh angle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-23-2005 7:37 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-24-2005 7:07 AM Faith has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 172 of 300 (262818)
11-24-2005 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by IrishRockhound
11-23-2005 2:50 PM


Re: 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
Obviously, you aren`t paying attention to a lot of threads, where we challenge the concept of 'A' Bible, not on scientific grounds, but on the historical texts, lack of provenance, mis-translations, faulty interpretations, ignorance of contrary texts,dismissal of textual strands, scribal errors, redactions, text out of context, conflations, etc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-23-2005 2:50 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-24-2005 7:47 AM Nighttrain has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 173 of 300 (262820)
11-24-2005 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
11-23-2005 11:27 PM


Re: Premise
quote:
Why is it so fascinating to talk only about the Bible when you could also construct the parallel points for Science?
But I didn't find just the bible fascinating.
I found the apparent convergence of a scientific idea and a creationist idea fascinating, considering that the more typical event is that their respective ideas diverge significantly. (The idea in question was that the bible is under attack.)
quote:
OK,I have no idea why that is so interesting to you, since certainly the same thing can be done in relation to Science. Apparently it's just a side issue.
Yes, it is just a side issue. Again, I find it interesting because it is a exception to the general rule that scientists and creationists will not agree with each other.
quote:
Yes I do, I'm a YEC and those are my presuppositions, and in the above I was not making a comparison but explaining the Biblical point of view. I thought you on the other hand were trying to state the opposing premises but apparently you weren't.
So you ask me to step back from my own presuppositions, but I cannot expect you to do the same?
If this is the case, this discussion is an exercise in futility.
quote:
I'd rather drop it though from my point of view I had been keeping my objective in mind as well as I thought even possible under the circumstances. I reiterated the two premises quite clearly many times and I haven't seen that your contribution adds much. I'm merely glad that to some extent you seem to be open to what I'm trying to do and grasping what I'm doing, and while I appreciate your engaging in the discussion I don't see that you've done much with it. I DO have an objective here and I've been pursuing it quite consistently considering the various interlocutors who have wanted me to answer from various angles on it.
If your opinion is that my contribution is not worthwhile to this thread, then I am not interested in participating further. I contend that I have contributed a worthwhile level of discussion.
Your "objective" here does not seem to be one you can explain with any degree of clarity. As far as I can see, it is actually to make me agree with you no matter what you say.
I also don't appreciate your patronising attitude that I'm somehow not "getting it", despite the fact that you can't seem to explain what I'm not getting.
quote:
Absolutely. He made humanity. This is my presupposition, absolutely. I am asking you to do the mental exercise of thinking like a YEC on this point. No big deal, drop it.
But this is a big deal. You will not set aside your presuppositions - hence you will not do the mental exercise of thinking like an evolutionist. Why should you demand the reverse of me?
quote:
You are the one who said they didn't have as much faith as I have. I consider that a fault.
That it is a fault is your opinion. That they are misguided (presumeably because they do not follow your premise) is also your opinion. This does not change the reality that there are creationists of that caliber and they bring faulty science to be debated here, and this does not mean that they are misguided or at fault from the view of their own premise - simply that they are misguided from the view of yours.
We have described the premises of science and literal creationism. We have described the fundamental clash between them. We have agreed that, because of the enforcement of the scientific premise here at EvCForum, much actual debate is simply not possible.
You have stated that you do not wish to develop the ideas of literal creationism from its premise.
As you have not and seemingly cannot communicate where exactly you want to go from here, the discussion is essentially over.
From your original post:
quote:
But since the very fact that there IS a different YEC methodology was never really acknowledged except by Ben, and otherwise was just denigrated as irrational as usual, nor was anything I had to say about what it is acknowledged but merely argued with from the same old science assumptions, I don't see any other direction to go.
I asked for a step-wise YEC methodology, but you specified that you wanted to describe the premise and leave the methodology for now.
quote:
For some reason it is just about impossible to get anyone to stand back and recognize that we are talking about two completely opposed premises or presuppositions and that that is what slants the debate here.
I am that person. I have recognised the two opposed premises - indeed, I described them and the clash between them, and you agreed with my description. I agreed that the debate here is influenced by the scientific premise, and suggested why this is the case. I pointed out that I did not agree that ALL debate here should be slanted by the scientific premise.
quote:
This kind of objective distance is difficult to achieve of course, for all on both sides of the divide, but that was the aim of that thread and any continuation of it will have the same aim and probably the same problems, and I don't see how to focus it any more clearly myself.
You agreed that I was succeeding in stepping back from the scientific premise. I was discussing both premises objectively.
So this discussion is over. You have what you asked for, unless you can clarify what else you want.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 11-23-2005 11:27 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 7:25 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 174 of 300 (262824)
11-24-2005 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by IrishRockhound
11-24-2005 7:07 AM


Resolving the issue
If Faith's description of the situation is correct the following resolution should solve the problem.
On scientific fora all conclusions should be assumed to be no more the best that current science can come up with. The question of the authority of science over religion or vice versa should not arise.
On faith-related fora we should respect the authority of God over science in the following way. If it can be shown that God did say something and that it is interpreted correctly (that is that the meaning of the statement is God's intended meaning) it should be accepted no matter what the scientific evidence states.
I will publically state that I am willing to accept these conditions.
I will also predict that Faith will not accept these as adequate even though they resolve the clash which she identifies as the problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by IrishRockhound, posted 11-24-2005 7:07 AM IrishRockhound has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2005 9:29 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 11-24-2005 11:06 AM PaulK has replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 175 of 300 (262828)
11-24-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Nighttrain
11-24-2005 6:53 AM


Re: Premise
Point taken.
But remember, according to Faith's premise, all that doesn't matter. There is a bible (which one, I have no idea, I can barely tell the different versions apart as it is) and that bible cannot be wrong in any way. The scientific premise is coming from the other direction, in that it assumes that that same bible could be wrong, and the debate is still conducted in that same context.
But suggesting anything could be incorrect or "wrong" with the bible, whatever that bible may be, is futile and does not really make for a good debate with creationists. All that happens is the two sides butt heads for a few hundred posts.
I'm hoping that if we allow even one or two creationists room to develop a methodology, perhaps a few hypotheses, from their own premise as opposed to ours, perhaps we can get the debate moving again. Faith has opted out of this but I'm hopeful that another might rise to the challenge if they know they won't be swamped by twenty evolutionists.
Of course, I'm still an evolutionist and I'm pretty sure that I will not agree in any way with the results of such a discussion, but the point is that I want to encourage a good discussion in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Nighttrain, posted 11-24-2005 6:53 AM Nighttrain has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 300 (262866)
11-24-2005 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PaulK
11-24-2005 7:25 AM


Re: Resolving the issue
On faith-related fora we should respect the authority of God over science in the following way. If it can be shown that God did say something and that it is interpreted correctly (that is that the meaning of the statement is God's intended meaning) it should be accepted no matter what the scientific evidence states.
So.
If I'm looking at something green, and the Bible tells me that what I'm looking at is red, I'm supposed to conclude that there's something wrong with my eyes?
If that's the case - if I'm supposed to distrust my own senses to that degree - how can I know that I'm reading the Bible correctly? If my direct observation can be so fooled, how can I know that I'm not being fooled about the text on the page? Even inventing words that aren't there?
I see the supremacy of the Bible over observation as inherently self-contradictory, given that observation (of its written text) is the only way to percieve the Bible. If we can't trust our observations to be accurate about the world, then we can't trust them about the Bible which is in the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 9:49 AM crashfrog has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 300 (262883)
11-24-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by crashfrog
11-24-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Resolving the issue
That's not what I said. I said it is necessary to show that GOD said it. I don't accept that the Bible is or even claims to be the direct word of God. Or that if it is somehow the word of God the creationist interpetation is correct.
So all those would have to be shown first.
If the issue really is one of God's authority then Faith should be happy with that. I predict that she will not be because God's authority is not the real issue at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2005 9:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Faith, posted 11-24-2005 11:24 AM PaulK has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 300 (262905)
11-24-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
11-21-2005 2:16 PM


Faith's OP Statement
Faith writes:
Nope. To demand evidence is simply to demand that I submit to the very presupposition I'm saying is a contradiction with my own presupposition, typical at EvC but exactly what I'm challenging. The validation of a revelation from God does not depend upon evidence but upon having the "ears to hear" and believe what is written. You are again merely asserting your presupposition against mine. You demand evidence as part of the science presupposition that runs EvC. Nope, God's revelation needs no evidence.
Evidence only enters in on matters God has not revealed, and that includes among other things all the WAYS the Flood may have occurred and left signs of its occurrence. THAT is where actual science begins for a YEC.
On the other hand, Biblical faith is not blind believism as seems to be with some religious ideologies. Biblical faith rests upon verifiable historical record, archeological discoveries, fulfilled prophecy et al. These all become evidence for the existence of supreme intelligent design and the higher intelligent dimension existing in the universe, unseen by the human eye. This evidence becomes paramount for establishing a viable premise for the creationist in the evo/creo debate forum. That's not always easy to incorporate into a given thread without drawing the thread off topic, but needs to be aired sufficiently somehow into the presuppositions and premises of creo debate.
Science is making new discoveries, detecting existence of the mysterious as well, such as particles,et al which seem to be narrowing the gap between the mysterious religious and the mysterious secular. Secularist science is needing to climb down off the high horse and admit that they really have no corner on truth, so far as origins and explanations of the mysterious go. The secularist majority's real problem, imo, is that they don't want to be held accountable to any higher authority. Thus the reluctance to allow ID a place in the educational arena as well as the science journals. A good example of this is the reluctance of secularist marine research in the Gulf of Aqaba to either refute or verify what credible creationists researchers have claimed to have discovered and photographed there relative to the Biblical Exodus account........and these researchers include more than the late Ron Wyatt, scientists who have the equipment and expertise to complete and verify what Wyatt pioneered.
This all, imo, touches on the evidence creos need to establish enough credence so as to justify debate in the science arena. Without this, there is no debate. With it, we can move confidently forward with our interpretation of what is observed.
The YEC, though disadvantaged in the origins debate, does nevertheless have the same evidence concerning the flood, evolution/creo debate, et al, as the IDist old universe creationist like myself has and should be using it.
Unfortunately, the pastors and teachers, by and large in the fundamentalist churches get little education in the fields of eschatology and Biblial archeology in the Christian universities and seminaries. They seem to be tought to avoid the controversial mysterious also, so the pulpits and Sunday school lessons are void of this important informantion. Thus much of the responsibility for the takeover of the public education arena by secularists falls squarely on the Christians who've abrogated this to the secularists.
Edited to correct a spelling error missed in the preview.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-24-2005 10:54 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 2:16 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 300 (262908)
11-24-2005 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PaulK
11-24-2005 7:25 AM


Re: Resolving the issue
If Faith's description of the situation is correct the following resolution should solve the problem.
On scientific fora all conclusions should be assumed to be no more the best that current science can come up with. The question of the authority of science over religion or vice versa should not arise.
I am unable to picture what this would look like in practice. My position on this subject has been all along that there IS no way to resolve the conflict of premises I'm trying to spell out.
AbE: That is, we are talking about two mutually exclusive, absolutely contradictory, worldviews. The only way they can be resolved is for one to capitulate to the other.
On faith-related fora we should respect the authority of God over science in the following way. If it can be shown that God did say something and that it is interpreted correctly (that is that the meaning of the statement is God's intended meaning) it should be accepted no matter what the scientific evidence states. I will publically state that I am willing to accept these conditions.
This won't work because you want the premises to meet some external criteria, to determine whether God did say something and whether according to you or whomever it is interpreted correctly. This would be an endless unresolvable process.
My whole point has been that the YEC operates from a GIVEN, a nonnegotiable premise. You want it to be negotiated which denies this entirely. The premise is not open to negotiation about its correctness except on threads dedicated to those questions -- which are very common at EvC already.
I will also predict that Faith will not accept these as adequate even though they resolve the clash which she identifies as the problem.
I myself don't have in mind resolving the clash, Paul. I believe the clash is built-in and unresolvable because the two sets of presuppositions are so mutually antagonistic. I'd be content to have it recognized that there is no way to have a debate that isn't slanted either to one side or the other.
AbE: Meaning no way to have a debate about the particular science questions that directly relate to the Biblical Creation and Flood stories.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-24-2005 11:15 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-24-2005 11:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2005 11:21 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 189 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2005 12:31 PM Faith has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 180 of 300 (262913)
11-24-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Faith
11-24-2005 11:06 AM


Re: Resolving the issue
I don't see a problem with my proposals IF your description of the situation is correct.
Added in edit: Since my proposals accept the authority of God over science and do not assert the authority of science over God they could be seen as capitulation to your worldview IF that were the real clash. If it is not, then the real clash still needs to be brought into the open.
quote:
This won't work because you want the premises to meet some external criteria, to determine whether God did say something and whether according to you or whomever it is interpreted correctly. This would be an endless unresolvable process.
You are claiming here that we cannot know what God said. In that case the question of God's authority cannot arise.
quote:
My whole point has been that the YEC operates from a GIVEN, a nonnegotiable premise. You want it to be negotiated which denies this entirely. The premise is not open to negotiation about its correctness except on threads dedicated to those questions -- which are very common at EvC already.
You described that premise as God having authority over science. And that issue I addressed. What you are saying here is that the question is not about the authority of God, but the closed minds of creationists.
quote:
I myself don't have in mind resolving the clash, Paul. I believe the clash is built-in and unresolvable because the two sets of presuppositions are so mutually antagonistic. I'd be content to have it recognized that there is no way to have a debate that isn't slanted either to one side or the other.
Except of course that the current rules do permit fair debate and that is preciesly what you object to. Your only case for any "slant" is the fact that the rules are not completely rigged in your favour.
The debate is not "slanted" because you are not granted special privileges.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 11-24-2005 11:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Faith, posted 11-24-2005 11:06 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024