The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum

As I see it the forum is open to theological discussion. Interpretations of the Bible can be argued here. Even the inerrancy doctrine itself is open to debate. It's just that the arguments have to be primarily theological. Scientific evidence isn't ruled out, but it has to be used to support theological arguments.For instance you can argue about why God would make an Earth that looked old if it was really young, using scientific arguments to support the fact that the Earth does indeed look old (and it's the sort of thing I would expect in a YEC vs OEC argument).u

As I remember it Faith has intentionally avoided theological arguments. Which really does leave the question of what she is actually happy to debate.

Let me point out that your ideas are not the ideas behind this particular forum.But what exactly does your idea leave open to discussion ?

I think you mean that you strenuously argued that the debate was unfair because it wasn't rigged in your favour. Since you were never able to come up with a real justification for that claim (and because it would be silly to create a forum on that basis) I find it hard to believe that this forum was intended to reflect your ideas.Unless and until Admin asserts that your view that YEC theology must go unchallenged here is correct I will stick with my view that theological argument is permitted.

Creationists are often suspended from the science fora for repeatedly failing to follow the rules - and there are valid reasosn for the rules. That is the real fact of the matter. That creationists are in a minority has nothing to do with it.

Seems to me that this is a place to discuss ID and creationism form a theological perspective. That's what the title suggests.And since it includes ID - and ID seems to be mainly lead by Old-Earther's - I can't see any justification for the idea that this forum is intended to be YEC-only. Why put ID in the title and ban the views of the leadign lights in the ID movement ?a

There really doesn't seem to be much focussed on the specific topic of creation or ID. A

As I understand it, the only reason for bringing the discussion ot this forum would be if the creationist side conceded the scientific argument. If they wish to argue the science then it should stay in the science forums.

So essentially you are admitting that your theological case is limited to calling anyone who disagrees with you "stupid".Because if you had a theological case this forum would be the one to discuss it in - and it wouldn't be useless.

It seems to me that the number of times you've insulted people for disagreeing with your theology that you ought to have a very strong theological case. If you don't then why is it "stupid" to disagree ?

In your case it would be for YEC - or any other point where you reject mainstream scientific conclusions based on theological concenrs. In other words, your appeals to the Bible (as YEC's view and interpret it) belong here, not in the science fora.

Double PostEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

But you are rejecting the applicability of science. Instead of looking for the best scientific explanation you argue that we should go with explanations that fit in with your religious beliefs instead, calling it "stupid" to do otherwise. Thus you have rejected the applicability of science in favour of a theological position.So having adopted a theological and anti-scientific position you ought to have theological arguemnts to support it. If you don't then you are admitting that your position is not only scientifically indefensible but theologically indefensible too.
’

Well I guess I'm just going to have to prove it to you.From this recent thread. http://EvC Forum: Does The Flood Add up? -->EvC Forum: Does The Flood Add up?message 286 [quote] Yeah I know the history whereby supposed Christians abandoned their faith for fallible science. Sad history. Some stupid stuff they actually accepted, a seeming arrangement of fossils supposedly proving descent. Now that is truly idiotic. In any case my assumptions are based on God's revelations and nothing so flimsy as a scientific
theory.
[/qupote]So it is "sad" and "stupid" to follow the scientific evidence over faith commitments. And your position is based on "God's revelations", not science.What's worse is that you misrepresent the history even though you tried to give the impression that you knew better (in message 294 lower down the page).You also assert in message 297

quote:

---

...I believe YECs respect God's revelation and all others compromise it

---

And you clearly believe it strongly enough to argue as if that belief were a solid fact - one it is "stupid" to reject, one that would be accepted by anyone who cares about the truth, not simply an opinion.Message 294

quote:

---

Anybody who really cares about the truth doesn't discard God's own revelation as lightly as it appears many have, just on the basis of fallible human science.

---

Which accoding to you means that nobody who cares about the truth. should prefer scenince over YEC interpetations of the Bible.Thus you clearly state that your position is based on a commitment to YEC theology, and that you reject science because it does not accept YEC theology as relevant.So there's plenty of theology to discuss. If you can establish that anyone who cares about the truth would accept YEC interpretations of the Bible as "God's revelation" it would be a good start.