YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology

1. I consider myself to be neither YEC or EVO, but IDC; Intelligent Design Creationist, interpreting the Biblical historical record both literally and compatible with observed scientific thermodynamic laws and interpreting what is observed, using the Biblical record as what appears to be the most reasonable and sensible interpretation of what is observed. My hypothesis interprets observed design and complexity by the likely existence of higher intelligence existing in the universe than what is physically observed on earth by humans, the highest being the supreme designer and manager of the universe, having been creating, destroying and modifying things in the universe eternally, from whom all things came and in/by whom all things exist.2. I do not presuppose the earth and the heavens to be young, given the Biblical record does not introduce the sun and moon which established the 24 hour day until sometime in day four of the creation record. I do presuppose everything from day five on to be a few thousand years old, the 24 hour day having been established by day five based on the Biblical record.Edited to add paragraph two.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-23-2005 12:56 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Hi Faith. I was hoping you would return and hoping Randman will stay on as poster abd moderator.My premise is based on the Genesis account. However, there's quite a significant difference in my interpretation of what is written and the majority YEC view of creationists as has been noted in my previous statement.My problems with this board which got me suddenly banned twice, for the most part, came about due to my contention that Biblical ID creationism as per my hypothesis can be debated to some extent with scientists. My first experiment as to how this would work via the great debate with Jar on the thermodynamic laws relative to my hypothesis, imo did very well, as did the 300 plus thread which followed. Shortly after that I was banned, but it appears that Percy is rethinking insomuch that he has allowed me to return and it appears there will be more opportunity for folks like us to present our arguments to a reasonable extent. I applaud him for that.My hypothesis is such that my counterparts have more of a debate on their hands, being I'm not YEC. Imo, YECs have a big, big problem, especially those who believe the whole universe is a mere few thousand years old. They have the problem that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, i.e. creating things and managing an eternal universe as he is eternal, imo, calling for eternal activity, as gods are suppose to do.As for the geological column and tetonics, I've done some debating on that, arguing that the preflood earth was relatively smooth as compared to post flood when the flood waters warped the crust, sinking the thin crust areas causing much of what is observed. Then too, there was the original creation event when God's Holy Spirit moved on the waters to separate the waters from the dry ground, et al. The preflood atmosphere being radically different factors in too. I hope this answers your question.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

.....And flood geology can be signifant, as per the Biblical record. It implies a completely different atmosphere, tetonic upheaval and large deep oceans on planet earth which present a sensible alternative interpretation premise to what is observed than what secularist science has theorize and programmed into our citizens via the educational instutions of the world.

On the other hand, Biblical faith is not blind believism as seems to be with some religious ideologies. Biblical faith rests upon verifiable historical record, archeological discoveries, fulfilled prophecy et al. These all become evidence for the existence of supreme intelligent design and the higher intelligent dimension existing in the universe, unseen by the human eye. This evidence becomes paramount for establishing a viable premise for the creationist in the evo/creo debate forum. That's not always easy to incorporate into a given thread without drawing the thread off topic, but needs to be aired sufficiently somehow into the presuppositions and premises of creo debate.Science is making new discoveries, detecting existence of the mysterious as well, such as particles,et al which seem to be narrowing the gap between the mysterious religious and the mysterious secular. Secularist science is needing to climb down off the high horse and admit that they really have no corner on truth, so far as origins and explanations of the mysterious go. The secularist majority's real problem, imo, is that they don't want to be held accountable to any higher authority. Thus the reluctance to allow ID a place in the educational arena as well as the science journals. A good example of this is the reluctance of secularist marine research in the Gulf of Aqaba to either refute or verify what credible creationists researchers have claimed to have discovered and photographed there relative to the Biblical Exodus account........and these researchers include more than the late Ron Wyatt, scientists who have the equipment and expertise to complete and verify what Wyatt pioneered.This all, imo, touches on the evidence creos need to establish enough credence so as to justify debate in the science arena. Without this, there is no debate. With it, we can move confidently forward with our interpretation of what is observed.The YEC, though disadvantaged in the origins debate, does nevertheless have the same evidence concerning the flood, evolution/creo debate, et al, as the IDist old universe creationist like myself has and should be using it.Unfortunately, the pastors and teachers, by and large in the fundamentalist churches get little education in the fields of eschatology and Biblial archeology in the Christian universities and seminaries. They seem to be tought to avoid the controversial mysterious also, so the pulpits and Sunday school lessons are void of this important informantion. Thus much of the responsibility for the takeover of the public education arena by secularists falls squarely on the Christians who've abrogated this to the secularists.Edited to correct a spelling error missed in the preview.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-24-2005 10:54 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

There is, on the otherhand, enough to debate that creationists like Institute For Creation Research and other creos debate in the universities and other public arenas extensively on a number of related issues. Creationists must not capitulate on this, for to abrogate the forum to the secularists seems to be the inevitable outcome of your position. Creationists must not leave the secularists in total control of the forum, unchallenged. That leaves them bored and us as loosers.Percy has wisely and graciously widened the debate spectrum so as to allow more alternative input in the debates. Let's not now think and talk like nothing's changed or that there's no profitable debate which might prove helpful to all who are genuinely in persuit of truth, both of the participants and the readers/lurkers.It's like we've been wanting in the fight, haven't we? Now when the opponent allows us into the ring we need now to get in and kick some butt on the basis of our credible presuppositions and premises. Edited for clarification.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-24-2005 12:33 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Oh, ok, having been gone I guess I missed this. So it's still that creos can't introduce ID interpretations of what is observed into the science forums? If that's still the case, I can now better understand Faith's points, that there's essentially no evo/creo sience debate here perse. Admittedly, I haven't read all the thread and didn't get this from the OP.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

1 The problem as per Faith = various interpretations of scripture.
2. The solution as per pwr = scriptural authority trumps.So given the problem, let scriptural reference be the premise for creo debate, allowing any given debate to proceed, making the best of interpretations. After all, it's not only creationists who have diversity of interpretations of what is observed. Our counterparts are divided, to some degree, on some interpretations of science as well.\

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------As long as evolutionists accept the ID creationism premise at the same time, there is no problem.There are really only four avenues I can think of for criticizing ID creationism:1. It is not scientificIn this scenario, the evolutionist must first accept the premise of ID creationism and then show how Creationism fails to meet the rigorous standards of science.2. ToE explains the evidence equally well or betterOnce again the evolutionist has to accept ID creationism's premises and show how the evolutionist's position is scientifcally superior to ID creationism.3. I believe it to be falseSince both have elements of science in them both belong in the science fora.4. ID creationism itself is faulty/incompleteThis could fit nicely into 'Is it science?':

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

1. Why? Whenever the ID creationist premise would be introduced in the science fora, it becomes an alternative science method, or better put as per topic, a creationist premise for interpretation of scientific observation. The terminology of your statement somewhat obfuscates the debate here. The topic is more about evo/creo premises and suppositions than it is about scientific method, as I understand the OP.2. Who is advocating that any premise should be accepted without challenge?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

But you are implying that there is no ID creationism premise allowed in the science fora. It appears that you are agreeing with Faith. I'm saying there is ID creationism science and that when it's scientific applications are being debated and discussed, it's premise becomes a scientific premise to be debated in the science fora. After all, secularist universities are allowing Institute for Creationism's scientists to debate their premises and suppositions in their science fora.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Your interpretation of dict.com's primary definition of science is skewed. The implication of the definition is that the activities of a may or may not be applied and/or restricted to b and c. Then there's the other applications of science defined.1. a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
1. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
1. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

The primary point of my message was that in dict.com's primary {#1) definition, i.e. 1.a,b & c, your interpretation of this primary definition is skewed. This aside comment was to show that there are also secondary applications which may or may not be applied to a given usage, depending on the application.
buz: "Then there's the other applications of science defined."

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

As per Faith's message 181 which PaulK cited, Faith's statement pertained to premise and as per context of message 181, that one is to be allowed to debate on that premise and that premise alone, as I understand the message.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I guess we should let Faith clarify her point if she wishes, but I read 181's message to be that all should be allowed to debate on one's own premise and that alone.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Jar, jar! You're an admin. Right? You should know that this thread, as per the OP and as Faith has repeatedly reminded, is not about supporting/defending premises. Be nice. Do the forum guideline thing and open your own thead for off topic stuff.Edited to clarify.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-26-2005 01:02 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw