YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

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.

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.

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 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 01:35 PM

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.

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

Yes, and this is what EvC promotes in the science fora and this is what I'm talking about. Please let's not get bogged down in mere terminological hassles. When I say science judges the Bible I mean that it is affirmed at EvC that the Bible may be subjected to scientific inquiry and falsified on scientific principles. This thread is not talking about the particulars of the usual EvC debates, it is about the presuppositions from which those debates occur. The YEC presupposition is that God's word judges all things, it is authoritative over all things including all science. And the opposing Evo presupposition is that science may judge, be applied to, the Bible and everything else.It's a simple simple statement, so simple that people complain that I keep repeating it, because they think it is obvious, but then they go on to show that they aren't getting it. But as long as it is being misrepresented there is nothing else I can do but repeat it.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 02:07 PM

Ah a ray of brilliance transects the murk. How true.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with that. This thread is about showing that there is that position and that it is diametrically opposed to the YEC position and that there is as a result no way to have a real debate, as the YEC will NOT yield the principle that God may judge science even in the science fora, and the EVO will NOT yield the principle that science may judge the Bible on science issues, even in the religion fora. I don't know why this simple thing is so hard to get across. The point is that at EvC the Bible is treated as subject to scientific inquiry. What IS so hard about this? And the word "faith" is not part of this thread, it confuses the point. I am opposing the OBJECTIVE positions of science versus God's word, not the subjective positions faith in God versus commitment to science. But totally off topic and irrelevant. See above. PLEASE see above. The problem is that it has nothing whatever to do with what I'm saying. It is a completely other subject.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 02:34 PM

You keep reducing the topic to something else than what it is. I give up. I'll try again later.

Creationist attempts to argue scientifically are not going to stop. Creationists believe that true science will ultimately conform to God's word literally read, and they are rightly engaged in pursuing that goal.But I am not "urging" anything. I am not looking for a kind of debate. This ought to have been clear way back on this thread. I am ANALYZING the situation and that is all.The fact that there are two presuppositions in absolute mutual negation engaged in the debate merely means that whichever is held by the debate host will always win the debate, that's all. At EvC that's the evo-science people. At a creationist site it will be the creationists. This is what I mean by a REAL debate not really being possible as the deck is ALWAYS stacked. There is no getting around this that I can see.Of COURSE the debate will continue nevertheless, people aren't going to stop, and there are many forms it takes and all that it will inevitably solve absolutely nothing as the winner will always be the side whose assumptions are held by the host site. I believe I've explained this in more detail earlier in the thread.(There are other reasons for this too besides the clash of presuppositions, which I've brought up on earlier threads, most notably the fact that the evo-creo debate is not about anything testable, but about unfalsifiable interpretation of past events. Consider the thread that just made a reappearance on the board, about the supposed five extinctions in evolutionary history. There is no way to test that. It's all based on interpretation of the minerals and the lack of fossils in certain locations, the old earth/ evolutionist interpretation of the geo column of course being assumed, and none of that is testable. Other interpretations are in principle admissible but in practice none is provable, testable or falsifiable. It is all a matter of persuasion of the most plausible or best argued scenario by subjective criteria. It may appear to be objective because the scenarios are constructed on scientific principles, but in fact none of this is testable or provable and remains speculative.It isn't hard to see that no matter what scenario a YEC might come up with it will not be heard as there is no reason to consider it seriously since nothing is provable anyway, and it is not at all difficult to dream up contrary scenarios to answer it with if you have a lot of scientific possibilities to conjure with. So, no matter how good anybody's speculative inference on any given point may be, the other side can always come up with another speculative inference, backed by more math maybe or some possibility from physics or anywhere else, and there will be no way to decide between the two OBJECTIVELY. It will however be decided by the loudest and most numerous voices and that's what happens a lot here. Yep I've said this many times before and yep I always get shouted down.)