Faith's Participation in EvC

I agree with your basic observation.But you may not need limits since I'm stopping posting so much anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't know how you read that threat to go to admin mode but that's how I read it, and calling a person a liar is very bad form. I think you should leave now as you said you were going to. Bye bye.Oh and I did answer you, off topic and all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Percy, that thread was addressed to the very central issue of the debate. I could have stayed off it and then everybody would just agree with the OP and that should have taken only half a dozen posts and that would be the end of it. But he is challenging the basis of my beliefs, the basis of the whole debate, and I answered him. That it is not in accord with what science says or EvC says science says I cannot help. It is the basis of Biblical creationist debate and if the premise I stated is true then the conclusion is true. I didn't DECLARE it, I SHOWED it. Yes, well then it will, won't it? That is a ridiculous and obvious point, Percy, to which the obvious answer is that the Bible is not regarded by Biblical creationists as just a book, which I believe is how I answered, and if you will not accept Biblical creationist premises -- not for yourself or for EvC but as a simple statement of our position -- there is nothing more that can be said. What you want at EvC is simply an impossibility. You can always talk to people who are willing to bend the Bible of course, but you can't have debate with Biblical creationists on your terms. In other words, (Edit: Certainly if that post is considered to be a "well argued rebuttal") what keeps getting me into trouble is the fact that I am a Biblical creationist.1) I don't regard that as a well-argued rebuttal to say the least, but merely your statement of position which no creationist is allowed to disagree with, or YOUR statement of belief; and 2) I answered it, I did not merely give a statement of belief. It was to make a point.Obviously the chasm between our respective world views is unbridgeable.But that's the case between EvC and all Biblical creationists, not just with me.Good luck.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This being the inviolable premise of EvC, which Biblical creationists of course dispute, there is no debate possible.

I'll say this one more time.The Bible IS evidence. And it is evidence of a sort that requires all other pretenders to evidence -- other positions -- to yield. The evidence that is against the Bible is merely misinterpreted by fallible human beings, and we consider it our job to try to discover how that is so. Your flat dogmatic pronouncements that what Biblical creationists do is not science, as if you have evidence against us that is infallible and unchallengeable, are simply silly, far from anything scientific right there.Look, this particular discussion is endless. Why bother any more. Give it up.The only way debate can happen here is about the specific facts involved, not the premises. (And even then I'm afraid it's only too obvious to some of us that the debate is skewed there too).However. Onward and upward and all that. There's no resolving this. I'm avoiding posting on science threads for the indefinite future and if that helps, great.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry Ben, no, it can't be accepted, sorry.

The impasse is truly unbridgeable. The frustration is equal on both sides. I don't understand why my point can't be accommodated to and you don't understand why yours can't. I keep trying to say this, it's unresolvable. All that can be done is recognize that the other side has the view they have and argue the particulars, ignoring the premises. I can do that much, but apparently evos can't, they have to keep insisting their premises are right, are just what science IS.

Well, we've DONE that for heaven's sake. I've done it a LOT. In fact I've done it in this discussion.And please don't misstate it. YOU don't have to accept them, you merely have to realize that you are dealing with debate opponents who will not compromise them. Which I guess means please stop berating and browbeating us for something we will not give up.The Bible comes up in CONTEXT of certain challenges Percy, there are dozens of threads where it never comes up. Don't act as if it's my only way of posting. When the Biblical premise is challenged I have no choice but to answer it. Forget the Biblical premise and focus on the geological and other scientific issues involved and the debate can proceed.In other words, tell the evos to stop challenging the Biblical premise, rather than telling me to stop asserting it.I'm sorry to be a drain on your time. I'm quite willing to be suspended if that's what you want.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It might make a difference if I were dealing with only one or two at a time. I'm not aware of short shrifting anyone on purpose, I'm merely aware of getting worn out on long threads and having to face yet another lengthy restatement of the same thing. I have no idea what post it is you are referring to, sorry.I simply disagree with your general assessment of me, and I suppose this is doing what Percy says I do, but I'm just too TIRED* to try to put together another argument about this stuff. Maybe in that case I shouldn't answer at all.So if I have to be disappeared from the forum, so be it, that's all I can say.*I don't mean too fatigued, I mean psychologically tired, discouraged at the lack of communication.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

sorry, realized I don't have anything to say right now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So true, Randman.Sorry you were suspended again. I thought your input was right on.Well, I may be joining you soon one way or another.

Sorry, ancient post. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What thread do you have in mind, Percy? Seems to me that OP about faith based science can ONLY be answered as I answered it. It's not a science thread at all, really, it's a Statement-of-Position thread.

The question that occurs about this is whether this is about specific creationist personalities, or about the less scientific knowledge among the creationists here perhaps, or just in the nature of the evo-creo debate itself.So the question would be whether this debate has ever gone in a direction that doesn't put off the evo scientists, here or elsewhere.