YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

Moose wants a more specific topic than the one that just closed on YEC methods of argument. But since the very fact that there IS a different YEC methodology was never really acknowledged except by Ben, and otherwise was just denigrated as irrational as usual, nor was anything I had to say about what it is acknowledged but merely argued with from the same old science assumptions, I don't see any other direction to go.Below is the last post I couldn't post because the thread was closed, by Berberry. It is merely more of the same but at least it may serve to demonstrate what that "same" consists in.For some reason it is just about impossible to get anyone to stand back and recognize that we are talking about two completely opposed premises or presuppositions and that that is what slants the debate here. The evos continued to argue with my statements about this overview I attempted, and with the YEC presupposition, FROM THEIR OWN presupposition (basically Science Rules as opposed to God Rules), instead of being able to recognize their presupposition itself, their use of it, stand back from it and just SEE the fundamental clash of worldviews for what they are. This is no doubt due to their abiding contempt for the YEC point of view. Kinda puts a crimp in objectivity dontcha know.This kind of objective distance is difficult to achieve of course, for all on both sides of the divide, but that was the aim of that thread and any continuation of it will have the same aim and probably the same problems, and I don't see how to focus it any more clearly myself.Anyway, here is my last post on the subject there, which is saying the same thing again in answer TO the same-thing-again from the other side: This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 02:18 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:00 PM

Hilarious. Of course you nominated one of the posts for a POTM that did nothing but reiterate the very presupposition I'm trying to point out is the deck-stacking element. Oh well, that's EvC fer ya.Yes indeed consider it very very carefully. This topic ain't gonna happen. Nobody understands what it's about.Hilarious.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 03:02 PM

Moose, the topic that Ben opened was not exactly a debate topic, nor should this continuation be, no matter how it gets defined, as long as it aims at the same objective.And this objective is that we are trying to establish the nature of YEC methodology as distinct from the scientific methodology EvC treats as essential. Ben had some ideas but apparently dropped them. I disagreed with him about his forensics model, proposing what I think is more accurate, the archaeology model, at least for Flood discussions, where you are looking for something you believe certainly to have once existed in the past.This is in some sense only tangentially related to the presupposition of God's word, but that's how we got off on that aspect of the question. The Flood is believed by YECs to have existed beyond a doubt because it was revealed by God Himself to have happened. There is no call to debate this, or even discuss it really, in this context. It is simply the presupposition that YECs work from, that defines how YECs operate in relation to the scientific questions, which is what Ben originally wanted to define.AbE: Although YECs will debate this point from time to time, we will never yield on it because our presupposition is that God's word trumps science. Same as Evos will never yield on their position that science trumps God's word. This is essential to defining the differences Ben was trying to get at.And once again, as I've said many times already, this may make debate impossible, but then the point becomes to illuminate this fact instead of continuing to bash each other from the position of our dogmatic presuppositions -- yes, yours are just as dogmatic as ours.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 04:57 PM

I've acknowledged that will probably be the case. The way it stands now Science trumps the word of God when there is a conflict and those who hold to the word of God are treated as nuts and worse. YECs in other words "basically then have to admit that [Science] is always right", Science is God, and the God of the Bible must yield to Science. It's apparently either one or the other, which makes debate impossible. This is pretty much what I have been saying all along. As a YEC I refuse to submit to the Science Rules All presupposition and if my presupposition also cannot be accepted by my opponent, at the very least we can all agree that debate can't happen. I would regard that as progress myself. See above and please reread my Message 8 about how this is not a debate, this is about following up on Ben's attempt to define YEC methodology as valid but not the same as the Science methodology held at EvC. Well that is just about all we do, so I figure it's time to analyze the situation and admit that we are coming from completely irreconcilable opposite positions. YECs have no problem whatever with science, we simply refuse to allow it to judge God. Sorry, God judges science. Sure, but that's all that ever goes on here. This thread is for getting at the root of the conflict itself. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the methodologies that do battle here between Science and God.It is a PRESUPPOSITION for a YEC that He did. That is the whole point I'm making. A Presupposition, a Premise, an Assumption, a Given, just as the methods of Science are that for the Evolutionist side of the argument in attacking that Premise. I am pointing out that our Presuppositions are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND IRRECONCILABLY ANTAGONISTIC.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 05:50 PM

No, unlike everybody else here who claims to have some belief in God, I am among the ONLY group that does NOT place faith in ourselves, but only in God's word. Of course we can't be perfect in our understanding but that is our position and it is NOT the position of most of the others here at EvC, even the Christians, as they feel free to make the Bible fit what they think science says, even to discard portions of it that don't fit. This is not hard to recognize and it doesn't require a Bible believer to be perfect at understanding the Bible, merely to have that basic stance. My view is the standard evangelical Bible-believer's view, those of us who take it as written and refuse to argue with it.However, you are debating, but this thread is for determining the nature of YEC methodology and its probable irreconcilability with EvC assumptions.

Hi Robin. I suspect that "special creation" may not mean what I believe, and in any case it's not a term I use so I'm not sure, so I'm not going to just accept that term, but what is important is adhering to what God Himself has said and His word clearly shows a young earth and a worldwide Flood among other things "Science" disputes.

The Bible is not individual and personal, it is universal and objective.Again, this is not the place to argue the merits of my beliefs. This is a thread about the nonnegotiables of the debate from my point of view and I will not negotiate them with you either, or with "what some people believe" about anything. All that is irrelevant.Thanks,
FaithThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 06:06 PM

You aren't reading very well I'm afraid. I've clearly shown you what the presuppositions of the debate from the science side are.

Sorry I have to leave for a while because I think this thread is going to take off and I'll be very busy catching up later. Thanks for joining in Ben.

I suppose one just has to be very clear about one's self-identification definition and all that, but Catholics are not properly speaking "Bible-believers" as they accept revelations to the Church separate from the Bible as equal in authority. If you can think of a term that is more precise than Bible-believer for my own evangelical Protestant Bible-believing position, I'd be happy to consider using it. You used the generic term "Christian," not I, and I wasn't careful to make the necessary distinctions.It's not a matter of whether one can believe one part of the Bible if you can't believe another, that's not the point. The point is that we know the Bible was inspired by God from beginning to end and we insist on affirming what God has revealed [ABE - and nothing other than the Bible on the same plane]. That's it. There are no other considerations.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 06:20 PM

We will simply have to risk disagreeing on some points, Randman. We can argue it out on some other thread sometime perhaps.

I accept differences of interpretation under this definition within reason, but those differences are for another thread.If the Bible is treated as the final authority that's the category I'm talking about.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-21-2005 06:38 PM

Absolutely right there. That's the attitude at EvC and we are discussing the elements involved in it. It is quite probable that the debate here that calls itself E versus C is nothing but a sham. You do state the EvC position concisely there.

Oh I debate even when the whole thing is stacked against me because I love debate -- until it just gets too ridiculously futile and destructive. That's not the point. This is another subject. You are merely continuing with the same biased position everybody has here. There is nothing any more dogmatic about my view than yours. You don't feel any need to support your premise with argument either, your premise being that science has the right to determine everything, including the Bible. It's an assumption for Evos here, a given, you merely assert it from time to time. When does anyone ever treat that premise as debatable? You don't. You take it for granted. That is no different from my taking the word for God as a nonnegotiable premise. And I defend my premise by saying the God who made this universe has the right to tell us what to think about it over anything mere human beings come up with. Makes sense to me.

Well you've sunk to personal remarks and I lose interest at that point. Also my defense that the God of the universe has the right to judge science IS a defense and Evos do treat science as their unquestionable premise, the position from which everything is judged and judgeable. We can debate the premises elsewhere, yes, but that is not the point. They are nonnegotiable premises. I'm not interested in what individuals may think, as there are shades and degrees on both sides of the argument. So if you think you could entertain the idea that God trumps science (?) -- the point is that the Evo side of this argument does take a hard line on science as their given.