Have any Biblical literalists been to the American Southwest?

But "Was there a flood?" is not a question Faith is asking. She's explicitly stated numerous times that she "knows" there's a floodd. Instead of asking this question, she's looking for evidence and theories to support her flood.The difference between the two is that when Faith encounters evidence or theory that she cannot accommodate within her flood theory, she rejects whether or not she herself can show it to be flawed.So I don't know why you bring up the point. "Was there a flood?" is a scientific question, but Faith's not asking it. Faith doesn't do science. Science is not only working through empirical data. It's also holding conclusions tentatively and being open to having them falsified. That's why Faith is banned from the scientific forums. Her methodology is backwards. She clearly has the ability to discuss empirical data, but she doesn't show any ability or desire to allow data to falsify her theories--in other words, to approach data scientifically.I hope this is a pretty straightforward and clear distinction. Somehow it's been talked about ad nauseum, but maybe it's being heard only through Darwin's telephone or something. I post this because I'm surprised to see Faith complaining about being banned from the science forums, and surprised to see you trying to support her.So let's iron this stuff out, ne?P.S. Excuse my Japanese accent. English may be my biological mother tongue, but Japanese is currently my "I'm living with my step-mom" tongue.

Haha thanks. Now I'm embarrassed to say, though, ... it was kind of a joke. "Kind of" meaning "completely and utterly."You see, I just came back to the US from Japan (stayed in Tokyo for 18 months). My "joke" was supposed to mean (for those who knew I was in Japan) that I'm still studying Japanese, studying hard. In fact, I live with 3 native speakers now. It's good, good for the studying... but you fall into certain tendencies in how you express yourself.I'm a native English speaker yo. Anyway. Back to the scheduled program.

Cool. I'm glad to agree with your simple pointAnd re: english... see my previous post to Nuggin. I didn't mean to misrepresent myself...Take it easy RR.RbE: smilies, per RR's request. Note to self: do not post smilies when responding to RR, holmes, parasomnium, possibly Faith.Good night RR.This message has been edited by Ben, Thursday, 2005/09/08 10:58 PM

Nonono, you need to qualify this (and you have in the past). It is based on what you believe to be eyewitness evidence of those who could overcome "darwin's telephone" and copying errors, such that they could overcome the fact that eyewitness evidence, and ESPECIALLY second-hand, third-hand, ... 50th-hand eyewitness evidence is not reliable.See Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts.Eyewitness testimony is NOT the best kind of evidence. And you've admitted yourself, you accept THIS eyewitness testimony to be "special" completely on faith (see the post (post 246) of the thread I linked above). So let's not go there.And please see post 93 for a simple explanation of why you're not doing science.Nobody says you have to do science. Just, you should understand what your own methodologies are, and you should understand the pros and cons of proceeding in that manner. The first step is figuring out that you're not doing science.

Faith,Please go back and read post 93. Every line in your post was a response to somebody else, not to me. I'd really appreciate if you address what I'm saying, not what you assume I'm saying.I know taking on all these posts can be overwhelming, I know I was the 4th reply to the same post, and I know lumping me with other people makes things easier in responding. But I also know that when you take your time with a post, you are willing to address it directly. I'm asking you to do that with me. Are you willing?In the meantime, there is one thing in your post that I can respond to, as it wasn't addressed in my previous post: Faith, my point in post 93 was that YOUR methodology, no matter what you label it, has some advantages and disadvantages. They don't go away because you're doing empirical investigation (and I know you are). They don't go away because you allow your empirical investigation to be falsified (and I see that you do). They are there because your conclusion is not falsifiable.I didn't say anything about whether that makes you right or wrong. "Right" or "wrong" rests wholly within the conclusion, not within the methodology. So I wouldn't say something so foolish. Like Crash often points out, you could be right.But you're insisting on calling your methodology science and insisting that it has the same properties as science (i.e. same pros, same cons). THIS is what isn't correct, and THIS is the point I'm talking to you about. By knowing the differences between your methodology and what we call science, we can actually make some headway about why it is that your theories are not accepted within the scientific community. It's more than "evolutionist dogma." The dogma may or not be there, but there's more to it than that. And I find it critically important to understand.My question is, why are you so stuck on calling your methodology science? The LABEL doesn't change anything for you; your methodology still has the same pros and cons. Redefining the word "science" does what for you?I'd really love to move forward on this with you Faith. I have no interest in attacking your faith, or in talking about "who is 'right' and who is 'wrong'." I'm interested in discussing methdology with you. That's true whether you insist on redefining "science" or not. I'm a pragmatic, I'm pretty open to stuff like this even. There just has to be a valid pragmatic purpose behind it.Thanks.
Ben

Charles,I appreciate your sentiment, and as I mentioned to RR in post 93, I realize this stuff has been discussed ad nauseum. I'd like to engage Faith in general, but I feel doing so requires us to establish some level of understanding of each other's positions, and agreement to some basic terms and knowledge about our own positions.I'm willing to listen to her thoughts, to discuss my thoughts, and to try some common ground. Maybe it won't work, maybe it will... I can only know by giving Faith exactly what I'm asking of her--consideration of the words we write.I'm willing to take the time to do so. Hopefully Faith will be too. And if it doesn't work out in the end, feel free to send along a "told you so." This endeavor's worth that risk to me.Ben

Faith,Fair enough. But I think at the center of your interaction with the others is this disagreement about science. In my view, the disagreement is what blocks you and your debate partner from really engaging in simple productive debate. Things are too tense because of a fundamental disagreement with the philosophy that's going on. You feel slighted because you feel your methods are the same as those of scientists, and others feel frustrated because they're trying to force your methodology to be science, and arguing against it as if it is.I'd appreciate if you make some time to talk it through at some point. I'd really like to find a way to promote better interaction between members who engage you and you. I'm not blaming either side; I think neither side is seeing what the major problem is.At least, how I see it from my perch.Ben