Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2019 10:46 AM
31 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,996 Year: 7,032/19,786 Month: 1,573/1,581 Week: 395/393 Day: 29/90 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 303 (242450)
09-12-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


I get your point and it is no doubt the best defense that can be made of what YECs are attempting to do here, but it will fail because our known conclusion is not recognized by our opponents. We know the Flood happened for instance, but that is exactly what is in dispute. We DO proceed from this premise however, as you describe, from this known conclusion, so you are accurately describing our method. But since the premise/known conclusion itself is disputed it won't solve the problem we are discussing. What we have here is a true conflict that is not resolvable.

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 10:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM Faith has responded
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 303 (242456)
09-12-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


The 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.

In fact you seem to anticipate that eventually our position might be falsified even by allowing us to pursue our method, but since we are working with explanations and interpretations and NOT doing experimental science there is really nothing finally testable or falsifiable, and therefore no end to the argument.

It is entirely a battle of plausibilities and the most convincing supposedly win. But in reality all the accepted plausibilities are on the side of the Science establishment, and the science side will think they've made the best case no matter what, and discount any explanation YECs come up with.

All a YEC really hopes for is to show that there ARE reasonable alternative interpretations of the data. There's really not much more we can do. But in this atmosphere of outrage and ridicule at our very premise that's impossible here too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:56 AM Faith has responded
 Message 61 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 12:24 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 09-12-2005 1:05 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 303 (242463)
09-12-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-12-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Let me give a forensic example.
There is a suicide note found and a dead body.

The question is to determine what happened.

The note says that the person killed himself by drowning but the body shows no water in the lungs.

Now, do you believe the note or do you believe the evidence of the body?

You're a riot, jar. You really think you can resolve this conflict by pre-empting the position of your opponents in favor of your own assumptions/conclusions. Well, of course that is exactly what I'm saying IS the position of EvC. Our view that God's word IS God's word is disallowed. You insist it's a human work, and in this example you are simply insisting that we accept that too. Sorry, this is a genuine conflict BECAUSE our premise is that the Bible is God's word, not a suicide note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 11:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 18 of 303 (242469)
09-12-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:54 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Oh wow, thanks but no thanks for THAT, Ben. I see no data other than the actual data that science has produced, and no YEC works from anything but that data. What causes the conflict is our premise that the Bible is God's word, and you can't solve this conflict by asserting that this is something we simply believe against evidence. Sorry, it IS God's word, it is not a figment of our imagination. What you are asking Nuggin to accept is NOT what I believe. Sorry, you are making a heroic effort but it's not doing me any favors in the end.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 303 (242482)
09-12-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
09-12-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Believe it or not ...
The key point is to have good alternative explanations. If YECs could present any such explanations, then they would be listened to. But as hard as people have tried, and they really did try, the reality of the universe is such that every explanation so far has failed.

Just as you claim to "resolve" the conflict by strawmanning your opponent's premise, you now simply assert the prejudice of the science premise against the excellent interpretations creationists have come up with. This is an endless frustration for creationists. And it's all because it is ONLY a battle of plausibilities and the Establishment is used to thinking along the lines of their own favorites and they've got the power so they win. There's nothing objective about it. Evos can always find this or that interpretation of a particular facet of the problem to apparently show that the creationist view of the geological column for instance, has to be wrong, but in doing that they simply ignore and override the many many OTHER explanations of creationists that DO work for OTHER facets of the problem. But I say this only to give an idea of what I mean, not because I want to get into this dispute here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:56 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 303 (242485)
09-12-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
09-12-2005 11:08 AM


I think you're giving Faith too much credit by assuming that her presentation of her position is accurate. People like Faith start not with a belief in God but a belief in the doctrines of their Church - and they hold that even God is subject to those beliefs. They may not admit to it - not even to themselves. But that is the core of their beleif.

This is false. My premise is the Bible itself, God's word. Despite all the claims that it is so ambiguous that all I'm arguing from is my own interpretation of it, in fact it is quite clear. The Flood is presented as a historical fact. There is nothing about the way it is written that suggests anything else, and what it says is quite clear about how it happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:18 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 303 (242495)
09-12-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Faith,

You have to be able to take Nuggin's perspective as well. From Nuggin's perspective, it IS a figment of your imagination. I'm not interested in judging "truth". The point is to be able to accept somebody else's viewpoint.

Nuggin's viewpoint is just the usual here at EvC. I've done my best with it. I've even capitulated to it at times. No more. What I laid out on IRH's thread about my terms, respect for my YEC premise, is IT for me. EvC denies it and it's time that's faced. Nuggin is just one more on that side of the argument, there's nothing more to understand. For them science trumps God, for me God trumps science. The fact is that the YEC premise is rejected at EvC and it is therefore a sham to pretend that debate is possible.

I'm not trying to tell people that your views are figments of your imagination. I'm trying to instruct people how to understand your point of view, from THEIR point of view. I'm trying to work with each person's faith, as it were.

Well if you want them to understand my point of view they have to understand that it is that God Himself has spoken, and I'm not looking for a dead child I mistakenly believe to be alive.

I think I didn't convey that well to Nuggin. I did a better job conveying it to Jar I think.

Just like others aren't going to convince you that your faith is wrong and yours is right, you're not going to convince others that their faith is wrong and yours is right.

Exactly what I've said. This is an unresolvable conflict, and here at EvC what that means is that debating it is impossible as the deck is stacked against creationists. Either my premise is accommodated as stated, without requiring me to capitulate to THEIR premise at the get-go or there is nothing more to discuss. There's really nothing more to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:46 AM Faith has responded
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:07 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 303 (242504)
09-12-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
09-12-2005 11:18 AM


Your opinion is not relevant here. If my premise, the YEC premise, is only going to be discounted and disrespected as it is here, and that's all you are doing, then the claim to debate with YECs is a sham. You've made up your mind at the outset and the rest is just window dressing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 303 (242510)
09-12-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You can try to change her faith, but until it changes (and yes, it may not), these are the facts.

I'm speaking for Jar here, but I really don't believe that anyone here is trying to "change Faith".

What we are doing is a two pronged approach.

1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.

2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.

If Faith never changes her mind, it doesn't change either of those two goals

Thank you for admitting what I'm saying. There is no real debate here. It's all a complete sham. Nobody has any intention of considering any idea that contradicts the Establishment position. That's why YECs need to be warned up front to STAY AWAY.

And once again, I have NO interest in the public school system whatever. You can have it. Christians should leave it en masse NOW.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:16 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 1:32 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 49 of 303 (242514)
09-12-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Still from your perspective. The closest I can change this into the YEC perspective is, they know the guy was murdered before they can show it with evidence. Somehow they have special access to "truth" that transcends empricism.

OK, that's starting to get it said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 53 of 303 (242521)
09-12-2005 11:50 AM


No point in continuing this that I can see
Thanks for trying, Ben, but it's a lost cause. The attitudes expressed on this thread are only too clear. My position on the Geology Data thread is thoroughly verified. There is no way a YEC's premise is going to be allowed here, and since that is the case the claim that debate is what goes on here is proven to be a big joke.
  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 56 of 303 (242527)
09-12-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:46 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Regardless if you've lost faith that EvC can draw a line and find a place for YECs or not, I think it needs to be made explicit.

That is exactly what I have been doing, starting with my first post on IRH's thread, making it explicit. Everything being said confirms my view that debate is a sham because a YEC's premise is disallowed from the start.

This thread is about defining term of a place for YECs. Can everybody accept it or not?

Well if you want them to understand my point of view they have to understand that it is that God Himself has spoken, and I'm not looking for a dead child I mistakenly believe to be alive.

It's high time people stopped working in "truth" and started working in psychology. I'm using an analogy, something that non-believers might be able to relate to. It's not about "seeing the truth." It's about simply being able to characterize each others positions.

That's fine, but your way of characterizing mine just is not working. But I can't restate my premise in any case. God has spoken in His word and His word trumps science and there's no other way to state it.

I didn't say the child was dead. Lots of cases happen where the parent won't give up, and the child's skeleton is found years later and the parent finally grieves. There are many fewer cases, but still cases, where the parent actually finds a path that the experts did not, through simple tenacity and time, and finds the child.

OK, then I misunderstood. The way you described it, it simply sounded like a distraught parent who would not face a proven reality. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

But it's still not a very close analogy. If I believe that God has spoken, and that the Flood happened, in fact that there's a ton of evidence FOR this already in the actual geological data, I don't think your analogy works.

Well, maybe you'll eventually find one that works better. I should probably leave you alone to do it without my interference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:46 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 57 of 303 (242529)
09-12-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:56 AM


Re: The forensic science analogy
The evidence is already what is in the possession of scientists, only at the moment it is burdened with evolutionist descriptions and explanations and assumptions. Free it from that baggage and a great deal of it supports creationism.

However, I'm holding to my original position: There's no room for YECs here at EvC and I see none developing on this thread. This is what needs to be made explicit and faced directly. No debate is possible because Science demands that YECs surrender our fundamental beliefs at the door. Really, this NEEDS to be made VERY explicit. I see no basis whatever for a resolution to this conflict.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:56 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 97 of 303 (242631)
09-12-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Modulous
09-12-2005 12:07 PM


Re: Forensic Science
and here at EvC what that means is that debating it is impossible as the deck is stacked against creationists.

That's only really true when it comes to science. The two philosophies are often at odds with one another.

It isn't a matter of being at odds, it's a matter of the one point of view demanding that the other give up its very reason for being.

If you wanted to propose a faith based debate or a philosophical one, then the deck is not stacked. A science based one will be stacked for evolutionists because their conclusions are scientific consensus.

However, it works the other way too. The deck is stacked against evolutionists if we start with "The Bible is inerrant, the flood actually happened". Then there is simply 'nothing more to discuss', re the flood.

Yes but the reason for this site is the science debate.

It's probably best to find a site with a lot of creationists on there with which to discuss it. Fred Williams would love to have you on his site I'm sure. Tell him I sent you

What site is that? I read the creationist sites but the message boards don't usually look very interesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:07 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 3:30 PM Faith has responded
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 3:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31333
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 100 of 303 (242638)
09-12-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
09-12-2005 1:10 PM


Re: A direct question
Would an old earth proponent change his or her position if presented with incontrovertible evidence that the earth is young?

Maybe not, but that's because an OE proponent doesn't have any authority but Science for support, whereas the YE proponent has God's word for authority and must remain true to it. (Even so, I think OE proponents in general aren't much more likely to concede because in the first place incontrovertible evidence just doesn't happen in this subject matter, it's all a matter of better or worse plausibilities, and second, no major paradigm gives up that easily.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 1:10 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-12-2005 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019