|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The question is, and has been throughout this thread, your assertion that your interpretation of the Bible cannot be challenged. Is that correct or not?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The question is, and has been throughout this thread, your assertion that your interpretation of the Bible cannot be challenged. Is that correct or not? THAT IS INCORRECT. There is no QUESTION. The point of the thread is to DEMONSTRATE THE CONFLICTING PREMISES. It is a simple statement of fact that a YEC holds that the word of God is nonnegotiable judge of all things. Your endless attempts to say they are wrong are OFF TOPIC. Gad, LEARN TO READ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is a simple statement of fact that a YEC holds that the word of God is nonnegotiable judge of all things. Your endless attempts to say they are wrong are OFF TOPIC. Gad, LEARN TO READ. Please show where I said they are wrong. I have simply asked if it is reasonable to challenge their premise. jar asked:
The question is, and has been throughout this thread, your assertion that your interpretation of the Bible cannot be challenged. Is that correct or not? Once again, is that correct or not? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: That's fine Buz, but don't you think a premise should be able to be defended or supported? Folk are free to come up with any premise they want, but should that premise stand solely by assertion? Should it be open to challenge and question? Jar, jar! You're an admin. Right? You should know that this thread, as per the OP and as Faith has repeatedly reminded, is not about supporting/defending premises. Be nice. Do the forum guideline thing and open your own thead for off topic stuff. Edited to clarify. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-26-2005 01:02 PM The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Buz, here is what I asked.
That's fine Buz, but don't you think a premise should be able to be defended or supported? Folk are free to come up with any premise they want, but should that premise stand solely by assertion? Should it be open to challenge and question? It's a yes or no question. Should a premise be open to challenge or question? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Faith (in message 252) writes: The scientific evolutionist side says science must judge the Bible; the Biblical creationist side says the Bible must judge science.How silly. Science does not, and cannot judge the Bible, for science cannot judge anything. Scientists make judgements. But science is an institution, not a person, and has no capability of judgement. And even though scientists make judgements, most do not judge the Bible. It is the historian, not the scientists, who judge the Bible.
I am pointing this out, not to comment on its silliness. In fact, the quoted text has been responded to in several messages. It has even been nominated in Message 52. So obviously nobody had difficulty understanding what Faith meant when she wrote that. Likewise, the Bible cannot judge science. For the Bible is inert text, incapable of judging anything. It is people who choose to judge science, and not the Bible. My point is to note how easily and how naturally we use symbolic speech, to the extent that we often completely ignore what the text literally says. And this in a context where some people are insisting on a literalist reading of genesis text that is obviously symbolic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: It's a yes or no question. Should a premise be open to challenge or question? Not on this thread. Challenging premises off topic here. YOU'RE HIJACKING FAITH'S THREAD AND IRRITATING PEOPLE! GET ON TOPIC OR BUG OFF! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
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. The evos continued to argue with my statements about this overview I attempted, and with the YEC presupposition, FROM THEIR OWN presupposition (basically Science Rules as opposed to God Rules), instead of being able to recognize their presupposition itself, their use of it, stand back from it and just SEE the fundamental clash of worldviews for what they are. This is no doubt due to their abiding contempt for the YEC point of view. Kinda puts a crimp in objectivity dontcha know. I may have read the OP wrong, but it seems to be about presuppositions claimed on both sides of the issue. Jar seems to be saying that nothing is a presupposition in science and that any premise has to be defended. I think this is spot on topic. Should a premise be open to challenge or question? AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jar asked:
It's a yes or no question. Should a premise be open to challenge or question? and buz replied,
Not on this thread. Challenging premises off topic here. YOU'RE HIJACKING FAITH'S THREAD AND IRRITATING PEOPLE! GET ON TOPIC OR BUG OFF! What does that mean buz? Is that "Yes a premise may be challenged but not in this thread?" If so, then the answer to my question was "Yes" This message has been edited by jar, 11-26-2005 12:26 PM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, Asgara, you have read the OP wrong. If I didn't adequately convey the point there, however, it has certainly been adequately conveyed subsequently. But that's OK, I give up. It's trashed and gone anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, of course it may be challenged but not on this thread, which is about something else. That it may be challenged has been acknowledged many times already -- but not on this thread. It is in FACT challenged all the time at EvC. But this thread was trying to do something different for a change. However, the evos seem to be unable to stand back and just look at the fact of the presuppositions without getting into the same old EvC argument. I am aware this is a hard thing to do for any on either side, but I HAVE carefully explained the situation on this thread.
The idea that science has no presuppositions has been answered many times. The presupposition I'm talking about is that science is given the status, the authority, the right, to judge all science questions and to judge the Bible too. This IS a presupposition and it RULES at EvC. It should not be hard to recognize this simple fact. And its being a presupposition does not mean it can't be challenged but I can guarantee you that it will not be yielded to any challenge, as the Biblical authority will not be yielded by a YEC. This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 01:34 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 01:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How silly. Science does not, and cannot judge the Bible, for science cannot judge anything. Scientists make judgements. But science is an institution, not a person, and has no capability of judgement. And even though scientists make judgements, most do not judge the Bible. It is the historian, not the scientists, who judge the Bible. This has been answered many times already. I am talking about the position held by the science side at EvC that the Bible may be subjected to scientific inquiry, and this position is enforced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, of course it may be challenged but not on this thread, which is about something else. Thank you Faith. Just let me make sure that I understand what you are saying.It is prefectly alright in other threads to challenge your premise. Is that correct? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Of course it is all right to challenge it in other threads. It is done all the time on EvC threads and I have participated in many of them.
This thread is about the META issue of the overall debate. Why is that so hard to grasp? This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 01:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why is that so hard to grasp? Because in your OP you stated...
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. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024