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

Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

As the non-admin mode quoted in a POTM nomination: Admins, I think we need to consider and process this PNT slowly and carefully, otherwise it's sure to be nothing more than a continuation of the later part of the YEC approaches to empirical investigation topic.Adminnemooseus

---

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

Faith, I am too busy to look at anything today, but I will review your post, give it a fair hearing and promote it if it looks promising.Glad to see you around.

AdminRandman - Before you do any topic promotion, I ask that you carefully consider what I quoted in message 3.Is Faith open to any sort of real debate?Is her bottom line "I know the Bible. The content of the Bible is the direct from God absolute truth, and anything I see to disagree with the Bible is by definition wrong?". That's the way I see it.Is there any room for any real debate with Faith?Adminnemooseus

I will, but I have no time and haven't read the OP yet, nor your response, in detail. I fired off a couple of responses on the ID topic I started and this, but I can't really give anything a lot of thought until after business hours.I'll be back after 5pm.

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

Thread copied to the YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology thread in the Faith and Belief forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.