Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The intended purpose of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 1 of 67 (326876)
06-27-2006 3:33 PM


The current mini-description of the "Theological Creationism and ID" forum:
The Word of God is the strongest evidence for divine creation and intelligent intercession in the universe.
Somewhat paraphrasing content of a private communication from Admin/Percy, on this forum's function:
Admin, in private communication, writes:
Those that do not advocate influencing public schools to include more favorable treatment of creationist views makes them somewhat orthogonal to the mainstream creation movement, by which I mean they differ from them in that they don't see the need to remove the Bible from creation science. We created the [forum=-34] forum as a venue for discussing creationist views that are unapologetically based upon the Bible. It has only six threads, so it looks like we may not be considering it often enough as a destination forum for PAF threads.
I had been fairly mystified concerning this forums purpose. The Admin/Percy comments clear things up, at least some. I thought this clarification deserved a topic in this forum.
Adminnemooseus
Note: This topic was started directly into this forum, without having gone through the "Proposed New Topics" process (something an admin can do).

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 3:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 2 of 67 (327048)
06-28-2006 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
06-27-2006 3:33 PM


Yes, it's funny this forum never got used. I remember when it was being discussed and how necessary it seemed to me at the time.
I thought of it as a place where Bible-based creationism could be argued without constantly having to deal with rude put-downs for challenging scientific positions; that is, a place where the usual accusations of Bible-inerrantist "wilful ignorance" and "refusal to learn," and "breath-taking arrogance" and the flat assertion that the Bible is nothing but an "archaic collection of myths" might be considered out of order, and an actual discussion of Bible inerrantist views of scientific questions might happen; a place where the Bible's testimony would be legitimately considered historical evidence. Considering the degree of contempt held by the science side of the EvC board for this point of view, I suppose it may not be a very realistic hope, but on the other hand it never really got tried either.
Since ID is also included in the title of the forum, and forms of theistic creationism as well, and Bible-inerrantists are often engaged in arguments with those views too, it may be impossible to make a free zone for inerrantist premises even here. In any case it hasn't been given a good try. I'll try to think of some topics for it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-27-2006 3:33 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 06-28-2006 3:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 67 (327050)
06-28-2006 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Faith
06-28-2006 3:18 AM


I saw this thread last night and I honestly cannot workout how debate in such a forum would occur.
The best I could think of it is as follows:
Poster x: "The bible says X occured"
Poster y: "Yes, yes it did".
(six months passes)
Poster x: Another cup of tea?
I can see how it would be useful for the creationists to natter amongst themselves but I don't see any sustained debate because what there for the "science" types to debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 3:18 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 3:40 AM CK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 67 (327051)
06-28-2006 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by CK
06-28-2006 3:27 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 06-28-2006 3:27 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 06-28-2006 5:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 5 of 67 (327062)
06-28-2006 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
06-28-2006 3:40 AM


quote:
For instance you can argue about why God would make an Earth that looked old if it was really young
But the earth is young, there is no scientific evidence that it's old. How do you know that conditions were not different last thursday? Therefore we must fall back on what it says in the bible and the revealed word.
on a more serious note - I'm sure we did try this approach somewhere before in one of the other forums and I don't remember much joy from it? anyone else know what I'm talking about?
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 3:40 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 9:51 AM CK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 6 of 67 (327108)
06-28-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by CK
06-28-2006 5:46 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by CK, posted 06-28-2006 5:46 AM CK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 67 (327123)
06-28-2006 10:24 AM


A Free zone for Bible Inerrantist
is simply another opportunity for them to spout nonsense but with no chance of reasonable input. It's sad that they feel folk pick on them, but unfortunately, that comes as part of the course when you are wrong. That is the real problem, they are wrong and don't like that fact being pointed out to them.
The point is that the YEC and Biblical Inerrantist positions are simply unsupportable unless they are protected in some sanitized area where facts and reality cannot intrude.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 67 (327147)
06-28-2006 11:24 AM


The idea was that it would be a mirror image of the science side, where the Bible inerrantist premise dictates the form of the discussion instead of the science premise. the Bible to be the rock bottom authority on this side of the divide. Of course that is already compromised by including theistic evolutionism and ID, which may not take an inerrantist view of the Bible. In any case, science arguments were to go on here as in the science fora, only without all the put-downs and insistence on science presuppositions.
As I can see from the above posts it was certainly a pipe dream.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 06-28-2006 11:35 AM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 11:39 AM Faith has replied
 Message 28 by Jazzns, posted 06-29-2006 6:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 9 of 67 (327152)
06-28-2006 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-28-2006 11:24 AM


The proof is in the pudding.
It's not that I think it's a pipedream but I honestly cannot grasp how sustained discussion would occur in such a forum.
faith writes:
the Bible to be the rock bottom authority on this side of the divide.
Faith writes:
In any case, science arguments were to go on here as in the science fora, only without all the put-downs and insistence on science presuppositions.
I don't see how those two statements go together. Let's take the current noah's ark discussions we have ongoing. The bible says it happened and that was that. What science is there to discuss?
Anything the science types try and introduce is going to be met with "well in this forum the flood did happen and that's that". I don't understand in that sort of circumstance what sort of "science" could be introduced?
Maybe the easiest way to see how this would work is to start a discussion and see what happens?
Question is - what on? (whatever the discussion is I'll sit it out)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 11:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 12:00 PM CK has not replied
 Message 51 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-23-2007 9:55 PM CK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 10 of 67 (327156)
06-28-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-28-2006 11:24 AM


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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 11:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 12:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 67 (327163)
06-28-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by CK
06-28-2006 11:35 AM


Re: The proof is in the pudding.
I don't see how those two statements go together. Let's take the current noah's ark discussions we have ongoing. The bible says it happened and that was that. What science is there to discuss?
HOW it happened. This is of endless interest to us creationists if only because science is so adamant that it didn't happen at all. The scientists are in the business of debunking it at every turn, and we try to rescue it from the oblivion they are determined to leave it in. This is in fact what creationists do. There is all this complaint about how creationists don't exactly do science. That is valid to a point, but it's certainly not true that the creationists aren't thinking about all the scientific questions involved, or that we don't want to learn about them either. I personally am no doubt limited in how much of the science I could grasp, but it's not an attitude problem.
What is not recognized on the science side, or at least not respected, is that apparent creationist evasion of the science conclusions is not a personality quirk (there are SO many insulting put-downs of that nature) but the only possible position one can take on the premise that the Biblical flood story is simply the truth as written.
On this side of the divide there is no reason why the scientists can't continue to argue their scientific conclusions against the flood, but the Biblical creationist premise must be respected and the scientific premise lifted to the extent of resisting expressing the contempt based on that premise; ideally even making an effort to put oneself in the position of that belief for the sake of argument.
This goes for the theistic creationists too, as they are just as contemptuous toward Bible creationists as the atheist scientists are, maybe more so.
The reason this matters is not just that of course one dislikes being treated with contempt, but that discussions get derailed when the scientists throw up their hands at inevitable creationist arguments. I would still like to answer more specific cases in anglagard's thread about how much of science YECs actually dismiss, because I am certain it is far less than it is represented to be and I get tired of this endless silly accusation that creationists are somehow against science as such just because we are against evolution and old earth science.
Anything the science types try and introduce is going to be met with "well in this forum the flood did happen and that's that". I don't understand in that sort of circumstance what sort of "science" could be introduced?
As I said, all the usual questions. How could there have been a flood considering all the reasons science thinks it couldn't have happened. How many animals were on the ark and how were they fed and how was the ark constructed and so on and so forth. How can the scientists possibly REALLY believe that those sediment layers represent eras of time. Etc.
Now that I write it out, it seems to me the problem isn't that there isn't plenty to argue about, but that it's already been done to death.
Maybe the easiest way to see how this would work is to start a discussion and see what happens? Question is - what on? (whatever the discussion is I'll sit it out)
I have a thought or two but I'm not ready to start a thread at this point. Maybe later today.
Edited by Faith, : changed theological to theistic creationists

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by CK, posted 06-28-2006 11:35 AM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 06-28-2006 12:07 PM Faith has replied
 Message 26 by Ben!, posted 06-29-2006 8:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 67 (327164)
06-28-2006 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
06-28-2006 11:39 AM


Let me point out that your ideas are not the ideas behind this particular forum.
Well, as a matter of fact, I was the one that got the ball rolling on it and was the most engaged in arguing for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 11:39 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 06-28-2006 12:14 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 67 (327168)
06-28-2006 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
06-28-2006 12:00 PM


Re: The proof is in the pudding.
What is not recognized on the science side, or at least not respected, is that apparent creationist evasion of the science conclusions is not a personality quirk (there are SO many insulting put-downs of that nature) but the only possible position one can take on the premise that the Biblical flood story is simply the truth as written.
It is recognized that you hold that assumption. It happens to be wrong.
This goes for the theological creationists too, as they are just as contemptuous toward Bible creationists as the atheist scientists are, maybe more so.
Almost correct. The Biblical Creationists are not held in contempt as much as pity. It is hard to understand how people could be wilfully ignorant or how the Biblical Creationists can relegate GOD to such a picayune position and standing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 12:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 12:12 PM jar has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 67 (327170)
06-28-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
06-28-2006 12:07 PM


Re: The proof is in the pudding.
See, if I were running this forum, that sort of stuff would be out of order here. First you'd be warned, and more of it would earn you a suspension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 06-28-2006 12:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 06-28-2006 12:21 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 67 (327171)
06-28-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
06-28-2006 12:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 06-28-2006 1:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024