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
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
™ Version 4.2
