Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

Again we see that the problem is that you want everyone else to accept your religious beliefs as true.That is not a viable basis for debate. Either you have to be able to successfully argue for your religious beliefs from shared grounds or accept that they are not admissable as arguments.

Well if you can successfully convince me that God said that there was a worldwide flood, that is resposncible for the fossil record and large parts of the geological record then I suggest that you start up a thread on that topic.But you are badly wrong about uniformitarianism.1) It is not just an assumption - it is checked wherever possible. And we have not fond any significnat variations in the way nature operates within hte lifetime of the Earth.2) Extreme uniformitarianism (i.e. constancy of rate) is a mainstay of YEC arguments for a young Earth.3) Since this uniformitarianism as it actually is used is both a reasonable assumption which you share when it is not inconvenient for you (how often do you take account of the possiblity that, say, the strength of gravity could radically change ?) and is one that could reasonably be disproved if it were false (e.g. the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and astronomical observations indicate no significant change in nuclear decay rates in the past) it doesn't seem a monumental presupposition at all.4) Uniformitarianism doesn't beg the question. That is, it does not logically entail that either side is right. Tnus it can't be automatically rejected as unfair. What Faith wants, on the other hand DOES beg the question because it does logically entail that the YEC view is correct. Thus Faith's demand CAN be reasonably rejected on the grounds that it is grossly unfair.

1) Your first response misrepresents my point and raises fallacious objections.2) Extreme uniformitarianism is less valid (for the obvious reason that it assumes more) And even less so when we eithe rknow or have good reasons to beleive that it is false.3)There is no hidden uniformitarianist assumption4) Even if the claim "No old Earth = no evolution" were sustainable (if you speed everything else up, why not evolution ?) your point would still fail because uniformitarianism does not logically entail that the Earth is old and an old Earth does not logically entail evolution.Chiroptera's point is not simply a uniformitarianist assumption - there are good reasons to beleive it to be true. (1 because it is true for ALL extant species and because of the consequences if it were NOT true).

quote:

---

My question is what is wrong with Faith using undemonstrable presumption in forming her argument when it's okay for you to do so?

---

Lets put it more accurately. We are using rationally supportable assumptions which are open to question - all you've got ot od is to provide a rational reason for rejecting them. Those assumptions do not bias the debate and you could equally well use them if it served your cause - indeed your "no old Earth = no Evolution" DOES use the same sort of assumptions.
The assumptions Faith wants to use are not rationally supportable, Faith refuses to allow them to be questioned and they DO grossly bias the debate.And since I've already pointed all this out your question represents an intnetional misrepresentation of the real situation.

1) One test of the age of the Earth that DOESN'T rely on uniformitarian assumptions is the large degree of congruence between different dating methodologies. A non-uniformitarian situation should not be expected to produce congruencies therefore that is evidence for a uniformitarian view.2) Astronomical measurements look back in time - because of the time taken for light to reach the Earth. We can also examine evidence of the past to see if it is compatible with uniformitarian views. Both these techniques greatly extend te range.3) It DIDN'T say "x billion years ago", those words were not in my post. Therefore all you are doing is proving that you are a liar.4) We are dealing with logic here, since any demand that logically entails victory for one side regardless fo the merit of the cases is grossly unfair. The fact is that on thsoe grounds Faith's demand is unfair while the assumptions you object to are - in themselves - neutral. In short you are trying to manipulate the rules by demanding either a concession that guarantees victory for your side or alternatively excluding valid evidence against your views.The mere fact that you to resort to such blatant attempts to cheat speaks volumes.4) There's no reason why animals shoudln't live faster and breed quicker other than the uniformitarian assumptions you supposedly reject. Speeding up those would naturally allow faster evolution.5) THe consequnce of animals not breeding in excess of the replacements needed would be that the species could never spread. By defintiion its numbers would be at best constant. Worse, the speces will be more vulnerable to disaster. If the reproductive rate is constant then the species is subject to decline through accident and disaster, leading to extinction. If the species takes significant losses it cannto recover becuase that in itself demands a reproductive excess. A species without a reproductive excess is therefroe locked into a static popuilation even under absolutely ideal conditions - and a declining populaton in a more realistic situation.5) I've offered rational support for uniformitarianism - and given examples. And they do not rely on assuiming uniformitarianism. YOur objection therefore is false.

quote:

---

Genuine Bible-based faith holds that science and the Bible will be consistent with one another, and this is the driving motive of creationists, not anything having to do with supporting their faith, but on the contrary, the application of their faith in the work they do as creationists. They know the Bible and the physical universe cannot disagree. That's strong faith.

---

And if that is truly the case then there must be a scientific case to be made for YEC. Thus it canot be the case that restricting the science forums to scientific arguments is an inherently unfair restriction on YECs.