YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

How you doing there, Faith?What I don't understand is why a young earth and special creation need be so important to a Christian.

Well, the Catholics don't seem to think it's important. That's a rather large group of Christians. I suppose they think that parts of the Bible are literally true and parts are not. They think, I suppose, that Jesus is the son of God and that he literally died on the cross. I would think that would be the most important matter, not the details of Genesis.I guess you believe that if you can't believe what Genesis says, you can't believe what Matthew, Mark and those other fellows say.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-21-2005 05:12 PM

I suppose it presupposes the validity of the scientific method.

It might be if you set up ahead of the discussion what the assumptions are going to be for a given debate. One might say, in the following debate we are going to assume that God exists and that the Bible, every bit of it, is the literal word of God.Then you could have various debates. For example, you could debate about what the word "literal" means. In point of fact, we've done that. Your view, I believe, is that one can figure out if some passage is literal by the context.Or we could have a debate about the nature of God. It's all going to have to be Bible-centered, however. But if someone doesn't believe in God and wants to argue that, such a position would be clearly out of court in this particular debate.So all you have to do is state what the assumptions are going to be ahead of time, and we can debate it.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2005 07:42 AM

Ok, I got it. What you are saying is that this is supposed to be a forum where one debates whether or not evolution is true, but that the science forums automatically assume that evolution is true by the fact that they demand the poster accept what are considered well-established scientific facts. (As regards cutting-edge science, that is another matter). So if you make some comment, say, about how the stratigraphy of the earth has been traditionally misinterpreted, this will automatically be considered out of court.

So they should just say in the guidelines for the science forums, "to debate on these forums, one must accept the validity of well-established scientific facts, such as that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution of life forms in some sense occurred, although the details of how evolution occurred are of course debatable. If you wish to argue a YEC viewpoint, go to the faith forums."

Don't do a GD. Do a regular topic.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2005 02:14 PM

I have my own hypothesis, and mine is that if my Mamma had not happened to run into my Pappa on that fateful day at a train station, circa 1940, I would never have been born. This is the exquisite complexity of my creation. A few minutes here and there, a late train, and they would never have met, and then what would have become of me? Obviously I was designed--by what power I do not know and perhaps will never know. All I know is that I was fated to be and fated to be talking to you here tonight. It fills one with awe to understand and fully grasp what a close call it was that I almost did not exist.

Suggest an idea for constructive change, Faith.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-24-2005 01:29 PM

Let's think about this. I know you and I can talk. True, I offended you once, but I apologized for that. So let's apply how we can talk to the whole field. And I think what I suggested earlier is a good idea.You just lay out your premises beforehand, and if people don't want to accept that, then they are out of court for that debate. What's wrong with that?

Yes, very reasonable, if one has in fact been abducted.