Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 3:53 PM
27 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,040 Year: 7,076/19,786 Month: 1,617/1,581 Week: 439/393 Day: 30/43 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 69 of 303 (242566)
09-12-2005 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
09-12-2005 10:50 AM


he only way the conflict about our premise could conceivably be resolved is if we are permitted to argue from it freely to show that we have good alternative explanations to evolutionist explanations of biology and OE explanations of geology.

So, in other words, you propose a "middle ground" by way of proposing possible explanations that could match the Biblical account. The debates would center on proving those specific scenarios right or wrong, without applying to proving the Bible itself wrong.

In other words, given a murder that represents, say the FLood story, you could propose that Col. Mustard did it in the library with the lead pipe, and that scenario could be debated. Even if Col. Mustard is exopnerated, the murder itself (thou the non-literalists could believe it a suicide) would go undebated, functioning as an assumpton.

I would be agreeable to that, so long as debates that debunk the Bible's literal truth are still allowed for those of us who are willing to participate. Interesting discussions happen there, after all. But I could understand and participate in a debate where the Bible is assumed to be true, and the details of how are debated scientifically, as a sort of "YEC-friendly" section, or if the assumtion of literalism is stated in the OP.

I wouldn't want such a thing to happen in a school, but it sounds okay to me for certain debates here.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:13 PM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 75 of 303 (242573)
09-12-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:13 PM


I think we agree completely. The debates of this nature should be kept to seperate threads, and the presumption of Biblical literalism should be stated in the OP. If it's not stated, Bible debunking is fair game, and literalists who participate should expect to have their assumptions of faith questioned. If it is stated, then non-literalists need to understand that the debate is only concerning a specific "how" scenario, not debunking the Bible itself.

Admins - does this sound like a good idea? Is there some way such a middle ground could be implimented, either by some posting rules or a new debate section?


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:13 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:24 PM Rahvin has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 84 of 303 (242586)
09-12-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Ben!
09-12-2005 1:24 PM


Re: Proposal
Sorry, I had missed it.

Your suggestions look good, but I would prefer more specifics. In other words, a requiremnt that, if the Bible is to be assumed to be literally true, it must be stated in the OP, and debate alond Biblical lines is to be considered off-topic, with the possible exception of folks like Arach stopping by to point out different translations.

And entirely new section is the best fit, and it would actually allow literalists like Faith who are frequently booted from the Science foums to have a place to debate this sort of topic. I'm just not sure if the Admin staff wants to open up yet another debate section.

You should post this idea in the Suggestions forum.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:24 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:38 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 116 of 303 (242677)
09-12-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-12-2005 4:36 PM


Re: YECism can't get past the facts
In reply to your post on another thread:

All you are doing is reiterating the Establishment position, which is not in doubt, but is exactly what I'm saying makes debate here a ridiculous sham. Take any next comment you have to the other thread Ben started, I forget what it's called.

If you consider debate here to be a "sham," then I suggest you go someplace else, where everyone accepts the Bible to be literally true regardless of any evidencce.

Of course, debating there would be pointless for anyone interested in evidence.

Honeslty, Faith, if you don't like the requiremnt of evidence, if you don't like the basic philosophy of science in which everything is falsifiable by observed evidence, you should just leave. You've debated here for a long time, and many of the debates have even been interesting (when you didn't hit the "teh Bible is teh word of GOD! I WIN!" button and leave the discussion in a huff). But if you are unwilling to debate in good faith as per the rules (by allowing an opposing argument to even exist, of all things) then I humble submit that this is not the place for you.

Faith, you're a very well-read individual with excellent writing skills. I have enjoyed many of your posts (even though I very rarely agreed with you). But every debate requires that both sides be prepared to admit defeat if proven wrong, even if neither debator believes they are wrong. Your insistance that non-literallists take the Biblie's infallibility as a given is like telling us to admit that black is white, or us telling you to admit that there is no God. It creates a sensation not unlike banging one's head against a brick wall repeatedly. If we cannot all proceed from a mutually falsifiable position, we are doomed to perpetual frustration, and nobody wants that.

Would it be so hard to say "I conceed because I cannot refute your points at this time, but this in no way alters my personal position. I believe the Bible trumps all, but I cannot provide outside evidence at this time to refute your position. Should I uncover further evidence in my favor in the future, I will return to the debate." ?


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 4:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 5:53 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 166 of 303 (242946)
09-13-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:46 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen

We know that gravity will be the same tomorrow because we know the universe operates by laws and not whim. And this is because most of Western empirical science started from the Bible's recognition of a law-bound Nature made by a rational orderly God. We may not know exactly WHAT gravity is but as long as we can measure it and predict it we have a testable science. We'd never have had a science of any great value without the revelation of the God who runs things by Law. Without that faith in the lawful orderly behavior of the physical world everything would be in doubt.

You're getting rediculous. You don't need to have a concept of God to understand that if you drop something, it's going to fall every time. Computer science has nothing to do with God. Flight has nothing to do with God - most of your peers at the time of the Wright brothers' flight said that "if God had meant man to fly, we would have wings." Modern chemistry had its roots in alchemy, a practice fundamentalists would likely have called witchcraft and heresy. TO say that all science comes as a revelation from God is completely rediculous and false.

And you're using a double standard. You will allow for changes in the laws of physics in the past to account for Biblical inerrancy like the Flood, but you admit that uniformism is true today.

Bring this up in an appropriate topic if you see it happening. Off-topic here.
-AdminBen

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:32 PM


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019