Is personal faith a debatable topic?

What applies to the proverbial goose ought to apply to the gander as well. For example, elative to the alleged flood, mentioned in the OP, in debating in threads relative to the flood, I referred to the thesis premise of the alleged flood. The thesis premise of my argument was the Genesis record depicting a global flood. One of the tennants of my argument was an alleged canopy.In the course of debating evidence based on my thesis premise, including an alleged canopy, my counterparts incessantly argued that I had furnished no evidence, implying that unless my evidence failed to satisfy their different thesis premise, being the alleged scientific majority debate position.My recourse, then, was to cite their alleged/unproven BB singularity thesis premise on which they based their arguments supportive to the BB singularity thesis premise.Creationists are repeatedly chided for having no model to render our position falsifyable, yet as I repeatedly argued that neither did their alleged singularity thesis premise, which would have had no space into which it could have existed, no time in which to have happened and no outside of in which to expand, defying, in my view, all logic, having no possible model resembling anything observable and therefore being unfalsifyable.
I don't know how may times I've cited this, but each time it's unfalsifyability gets swept under the proverbial (abe: rug by BBist members.)So as we debate two (unproven by definition) thesis premises, the majority membership insists that their thesis premise which assumes a relative (I say relative) uniform thesis premise is the only premise supported by evidence. The possible implications of a global disaster argument/thesis based on the Genesis record thesis premise, relative to dating data, etc significantly affect conclusions relative to the evidence debated.thesis (premise)
Definition So, Hyroglyphx, I've said the above to say that there is an element of faith in both thesis premises. Some of the evidence cited by both camps is the same observable evidence.Observable evidence base on unconventional premises or thesis premises such as the Genesis record are never acknowledged on behalf of creationists. Why? Obviously, because any acknowledgement of evidence supporting ID, particularly from a Biblical thesis premise, implicates accountablity of all to a higher intelligence. Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted in context

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

What proof do you have, as an archeologist who researches observable evidence, that something expanding existed having no space in which to exist, no time in which to have happened and no outside of into which to expand when, in fact, upon such a premise you base your thesis/argument and upon which thesis premise you interpret everything you observe, or is such a belief not subject to disproof by scientific evidence?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The purpose of my message was to bring home to you that the reason you don't consider my evidence as valid is because you're trying to require my evidence to comply with your thesis premise of singularity event, big bang and relative uniformity. Neither of us was around to observe, so we hypothesize as to which thesis premise we think best fits the observed evidence. You say my evidence is invalid and I say your's is. I'm with ICR and other creationists when it comes to evidence such as the geology of the Grand Canyon, for example. I've observed the research video on it and other stuff Their evidence makes good sense to me. The debate goes on, but you can't say there's no evidence of a global flood. ICR and others have it. Yes it's debatable. So what's new?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

We don't buy it. We have a different outlook; a different thesis premise on which we base observed evidence. Of course you people are stubborn as well. You wouldn't admit to evidence of a designer entity of higher intelligence, ever. It would not set well with you to admit accountability.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Here's the deal, Coyote. We both have an unproven thesis premise, yours being the alleged singularity, having no space to have happened in, no time in which to have happened, no outside of into which to expand, and no model. My unproven thesis premise is the alleged global flood which at least had space to have existed, time in which it could have happened and space into which it could have expanded the volumn of earth surface.Coyote, you tell me. Which thesis premise best satisfies the observable laws of science?

Coyote, the issue of this topic is not the global flood. The OP question implies that Biblical creationists like myself always debate contrary to proven scientific evidence.My response was to remind that creationists use much of the same observable evidence that our counterparts use but the two camps debate from totally different thesis premises. This is your problem. You people keep goading me for flood evidence when that's not the topic here.I am the one steering this debate on topic by trying to engage you on the reason we Biblical members (abe: are perceived as debating) science on faith and never evidence. I simply used the alleged flood and singularity events as examples, explaining that you people insist debate of the Genesis record must assume the secularist thesis premise. Whether it be the singularity or whether it be that there is an intelligence above the level of earth humans, neither are faith debates perse, though both require an element of faith.The debate, perse, boils down to the premise being the unproven and the thesis being the debate about the observable data supportive of the respective premises.I repeatedly remind you that the thesis premise of hypotheses are unproven, including those of secularistic mainline science members, such as the alleged singularity event the foundational thesis premise of your whole world/universe view.Now right here, I ask you the straight forward hard question. Your response, instead of answering the question in defense of your position, you, like so many, including Hooah, the OP author, resort to personal attack alleging that I'm making an ass of myself.The real problem is that the scientifically thesis premise underlying the secularist universe view makes even less sense and is less scientifically possible than that of the Genesis record, though both are unproven.Obviously the secularistic minded members really want to sweep this thesis premise thing under the rug because it's debunking their allegations that we Biblicalists never debate scientific evidence and always debate on faith, they being the only members who debate evidence. Thesis premises are not proven. They are debated. So it goes. Edited by Buzsaw, : Correct accidental wrong wording.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Blind assertion Thanks for the heads up on this mistaken choice of words. I've edited to clarify my intent. Are you reading your own thread, Hooah? I defined it and cited my source in this thread. It's a valid term.. As well, simply look up the two words thesis and premis and go figure. Hooah, there is no Buzsaw (abe: singularity). I've explained how my citing it relatied to this topic and that I have no intention of debating it in your thread. (abe: I understood the implication in your OP being that all Biblical creationists debate faith if the thesis premise is from the Genesis record. You said, "is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence?") Edited by Buzsaw, : change some responses. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add a quoted statement to former edit. Edited by Buzsaw, : correct wording

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I didn't say what the model of the BB was, so how can you alledge that I don't understand it? I said there was no possible model for the alleged singularity event, the thesis premise of the whole she-bang.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Thanks much, IchiBan. It's unusual for anyone here to appreciate what makes good sense. [/qs]

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Better yet, to get the profane to admit to the possibility of evidence observed being applicable to the existence of a higher level of intelligence in the universe than that of us little creatures on this tiny little planet tucked away in one of the billions of galaxies.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.