Faith's Participation in EvC

that's not what i mean. really, i should never have used the word "win" because it's not about winning. nobody will win this debate, i assure you.what i mean is that if we define the rules to be exclude creationists, then what's the point of having the board? there would be no discussion. i don't care if it's patronizing, really, i don't. they're wrong -- the facts and evidence and science is against them. and yet the discussion still happens, and their points are still being made. at a certain point, creationism is dishonesty, or at the very least willful ignorance. shall we ban them because they refuse to learn?or should we just go on instructing? and what would the board be without opposition? who would we instruct, or what issues would be raised that required clarification? one learns as much from someone being wrong as they do from someone who is right. you don't question the things that are fundamental to your beliefs. what if they're wrong? maybe it's a character fault, but i think we all suffer from it to a degree. i would be lying if i said there is nothing i won't question. creationism is not about religion. really, it isn't. it uses religion as its foundation, but it's points are not theological. in fact, quite often, theology works AGAINST creationism, a point i continue to make here in the theology fora. creationism is a pseduo-scientific extension of personal faith. it is the bastard child of pop-science and a personal relationship with jesus.it doesn't work by science's standards, because it's not science. and it doesn't really fit with religion, either. to expect to fit one or the other is to have misunderstood the debate. and really, getting frustrated with the gish gallop, or an opponent refusing to accept the obvious fact that they are wrong isn't a good reason to remove the opponent, however obnoxious you may find her.

---

i think, ned, they are contesting the rules.

---

you make a good point, wounded

people volunteer to pick up liter along the road all the time. you don't have to be a convict to do it. yes, brian. making her an admin has not, no. but over the course of her history here there has been a lot of growth, even if the points are still the same tired creationist pratts. i highly suspect ray to be a schizophrenic.

---

yes, and creationists are routinely banned from the science fora.but seriously, how CAN the discussion happen if they can't participate? yes, i know they disregard the precepts of science -- this is by definition. if they didn't, they'd just be agreeing with us. there simply is no scientifically motivated and accepted theory that involves an invisible man in the sky. i don't think faith is a troll. i post (occasionally) to t.o as well.

---

yes, but look at me. this is my sixth post IN A ROW in this particular thread, within the last half an hour or so. am i troll? or am i just addressing everybody who addresses me?on one hand, people jump on faith for not answering everything. on the other, people jump on her for posting too much. can faith win this game?

---

The rules aren't set up to exclude creationists. Creationists often claim that they can compete on the scientific level - Faith has oftne asserted that the evidence "really" supports her YEC views. If that were true then the rules would NOT exclude creationists. So the rules only require creationists to live up to their own claims. Are we to be expected to pretend that faith-based beliefs held in spite of the evidence really are science just because it would be convenient to creationists ?

quote:

---

creationism is not about religion. really, it isn't. it uses religion as its foundation, but it's points are not theological. in fact, quite often, theology works AGAINST creationism, a point i continue to make here in the theology fora. creationism is a pseduo-scientific extension of personal faith. it is the bastard child of pop-science and a personal relationship with jesus.

---

Creationist theology is bad theology - but it is a theology. And when creationists are being honest (or at least more honest than usual) they will say as much. It may not be entirely honest - although the Bible is said to be the word of God it seems to carry less wait then the creationists own beliefs - but unless creatioism is totally dishonest even there, it is still a religious view (even if that religion is self-worship).

I haven't asked anyone to believe that my Biblical premises are science, merely to understand the logic that if the Bible is given by God then those premises are facts and valid as a basis for scientific discussion. You don't have to believe any of this, merely understand that it is valid logic and Biblical creationists believe it.

You are simply insisting on your own theology here. Biblical creationists don't read the Bible as you do. You can't merely pronounce their reading false on the basis of yours, and those who agree with you right. That's begging the question.

Thanks, arach, you make a lot of good points on my behalf. I appreciate it.Others too. Not sure I'll get to them all. My computer is still crashing regularly.

You have asserted that it is reasonable to accept your "Biblical premises" as facts within science - no matter what the evidence. That is contrary to the scientific method. That was the point of the thread - and one it seems that you still fail to understand.

quote:

---

You are simply insisting on your own theology here. Biblical creationists don't read the Bible as you do. You can't merely pronounce their reading false on the basis of yours, and those who agree with you right. That's begging the question.

---

That isn't what I am doing. I am talking about READING the Bible instead of assuming that it says something without even checking or twisting the clear meaning.For instance if I disagree with this claim:

quote:

---

2. Ezekiel 17 mentions some destruction of trees etc of Lebanon by a great eagle with great wings, possibly indicative of aircraft...

---

Is it because my "theology" differs or is it because Ezekiel 17 does not mention the destruction of any trees ? Try reading it and see who's right.

The point of the thread was to assert a view as to what science entails and on the basis of that assertion exclude any other views which may be held about what science entails. Faith was entitled to rebut the assumption that asserted Creation science is 'illogical'. The argument is dealt with here.http://EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC -->EvC Forum: Faith's Participation in EvC{AbE} sorry link correctedEdited by iano, : No reason given.

How one reads the account of Noah and comes up with anything but a global flood is beyond me.

Yes I saw your reply and it was thoroughly wrong-headed. Creation "science" is not science because it places religious dogma over and above any empirical evidence.