Attention Faith: Geological data and the Flood

After my recent experience here of going to great lengths to make a decent case for my position that was trashed, mocked, question-begged and otherwise unacknowledged, as usual, then to have the thread simply closed in my face, I'm not very open to ANYTHING at the moment, so I'm promising nothing but go ahead, give it a try and we can see where it goes. I'd recommend that you put something in the title to indicate that you want to limit this thread to only a few, if there's any way to do that.HOWEVER, having said that, there is a very big IF I'm going to throw into this, and it may in fact make this thread impossible:I won't accept the idea of the Flood as a "hypothesis" so that needs to be taken out of the title and everywhere else.I've been here long enough to understand how these things play out and I'm at a point where I'm going to absolutely refuse to go along with this, which is just a variation on the usual #1 problem for YECs at this site. If you can't see things from my point of view on this, then this thread is not going to happen. Here's the nitty gritty: If that is indeed crucial, all bets are off. This is where the deck is stacked against YECs at this site. As for your particular part of the world that is to be the subject of this thread I have no idea what might be discovered there pro or con the Flood or the OE/YE controversy, but as a YEC my job is to see if I can find the holes in OE theory about everything geological, and also to see if I can come up with alternative explanations that support the YE view, and maybe the Flood as well. This is my JOB. This is my whole reason for being here.Some things are simply non-negotiable and nondebatable from my side of this. God's word says there WAS a worldwide Flood, it is not a hypothesis. I take back anything I ever said along those lines. It is not a hypothesis, it is a given, a presupposition, an assumption. It is non-negotiable. While any number of ideas about how it might have happened are in principle falsifiable, the fact itself of a worldwide Flood is not falsifiable. It cannot fail, and it is not even potentially "unworkable."Again, any particular hypotheses about *how* it might have occurred are open to dispute and falsification -- but since OErs have a high threshold for YE thinking, don't count on my giving in on any of these things either. The Flood itself is not negotiable no matter what. The Bible as a whole is not negotiable. A straight reading of Genesis, which is clearly not allegorical, is not negotiable.I would expect the discussion not even to get into such questions, but my opponents usually make them part of the argument one way or another even if I don't, so if they come up, this is my position, they are not falsifiable. Everything else is. If you can go with this, then put out your information and let's see what happens.I am going to include in this post my answer to a post by deerbreh from the rudely aborted thread about the Southwest, that I didn't get to answer there, because it is relevant to this topic: This message has been edited by Faith, 09-10-2005 11:18 PM

This thread COULD be great fun and very informative, but yes, I am most definitely on the defensive and not ready to dive right in. Some reconnoitering first. Simply "Geological data and the Flood" would be a start. But there is more to this than changing the terminology. From your first post: If the Flood is not a hypothesis, but a given, then it cannot be rejected as a result of the data. Ideas about how it occurred, as I have said, can be modified or rejected, but the Flood description as given in Genesis cannot be. I don't think any actual DATA could possibly falsify it anyway. It is only the conventional geological interpretations or explanations of the data that ever falsify it. But I am saying this because I want it to be clear that *rejecting* the Flood is not a possibility, and that when at some point I will not reject it no matter how the conversation goes, I expect that that position will be understood and respected and that nobody is going to start berating me for not being scientific. The problem is that people often encounter a thread after it has gone for a few pages, don't read it from the beginning but only the last few posts, and figure it's fair game. Simply stating your intention at the beginning won't prevent that. This is why I suggested putting something in the title to make it clear that the number of participants is to be limited. I'm not sure how that might be worded, though. Maybe it isn't all that crucial, however, as long as we know it will happen. I suppose people can be told at the point they enter the thread. Yes, and at first one tries to fit into the standard scientific assumptions for that reason. I've simply realized it can't be done, because for conventional science the word of God is subject to science (which is rationalized in all kinds of ways, such as by denying that the Bible IS the word of God, or that God exists or whatever); but for me science is subject to the word of God. To my mind the idea that anything the Creator God says could possibly be "falsified" by science, which is conducted by the fallen mind of fallen humanity, is ludicrous in the extreme, and to disqualify the study of the natural world that works from this kind of faith as non-science is equally ludicrous, but this appears to be the guiding view at EvC and in fact in science in general.(Note: As I am in the middle of writing this I see that an EvC notification has come in that someone has posted to this thread in response to me already, and it is someone who is normally unpleasantly antagonistic to my views. Did this person read your intention to limit participants on this thread? I guess I will find out after I finish writing this post) The problem is that this sounds too good to be true. I'm amazed, frankly, that my post here didn't get me summarily suspended, certainly from this Science forum thread, as that is what has happened every time I have dared to say anything along these lines, and although you are being quite accommodating, I am certain that other admins, NosyNed in particular, are agonizingly sure that giving me so much room is contrary to the entire purpose of EvC. And I can't disagree with them. I've learned that Science rules here, and my assumptions are not welcome. It has happened over and over that I am upbraided or suspended or both for doing nothing more than affirming these assumptions. It just happened on the Southwest thread, in that case by the method of simply closing the thread on me. So I have to assume that it is because you are an admin on the science side in good standing, or something along these lines, that this is being tolerated even this far. Very interesting idea. Wonder what can possibly come of it.I have some more thinking to do, so I'm not sure I'm quite ready for you to start putting out your field notes.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-11-2005 10:23 AM

It isn't taken seriously anyway because these ARE the conditions YEC works from whether they are spelled out or not, so why should spelling them out make the situation any worse? After all, the claim is merely that God has the right to say what happened in His universe, and it is those who deny Him that right who are in the wrong. Fine with me, but you'd have to ask them when it comes up, and I'd remind you that YECs' being dogmatic does not mean evolutionism is NOT dogmatic. What we have is two dogmas butting heads. This is how it IS taught in Bible-based science classes, and there's no reason to think it compromises the study of any actual scientific facts -- it only challenges the theories, explanations, interpretations. If you want the public schools to continue being taught that God's views of His own Creation are irrelevant to science, that's on your head, not mine, but I'm for having Christians leave the public schools for this reason among many others.

If you would like to copy this post and Modulous would copy his to another thread, I'll comment on them there. It's off topic here.

I assume, and certainly hope, you didn't mean to say that when I've confirmed my wish to continue, then off topic posts may also continue? Speaking of "they," I suppose it's pretty unlikely that any other YECs are going to show up on this thread, though if they do they are very welcome. If they don't, that probably leaves me facing three evolutionists alone. Which MAY be all right, I've certainly done it before, but we'll have to see.How about this: Are you willing to post that brief summary so I'll know better what's going to happen on this thread before I commit to it? It's really kind of exciting to get to see field notes, as the raw data is what is so hard to find in the usual discussions of evolution, but I don't know what to expect. As I said in my first answer to you, I'm not promising anything, though I think this is an interesting idea. I hope there are fossils.I'm going to be away for most of the afternoon however and much of tomorrow as well so this MAY not get going seriously for a while -- though I will have the mornings and evenings.And please remove "hypothesis" from the title of the thread, OK?This message has been edited by Faith, 09-11-2005 04:46 PM

I think we should just wait to see what IRH posts as the specifics about the Flood may not even come up -- they usually don't on these discussions. It's not even quite accurate to say I'm going to be trying to defend the Flood. It would be more accurate to say I will be looking for young earth explanations and for flaws in old earth explanations, and this may or may not involve the Flood. But for the record, the Flood occurred roughly 4500 years ago, and it took roughly a year from its beginning to the point where Noah and family debarked onto dry land. If you want to read it, it starts at Genesis 6:13 and goes through Genesis 8:
Genesis 7 (KJV) - And the LORD said unto

Since these posts were off topic I didn't answer them, but I'd like to answer them now while waiting for IrishRockHound's notes to appear, because they challenge the essence of my YEC position that is crucial to my posting on this thread. My answer can really be boiled down to one statement: Both nwr and Modulous confirm my point in their objections to it: I said essentially that in any conflict between science and the Bible God is made subject to science by scientists (and modern man in general) rather than the other way around (which is the position YECs take) and both these posts do exactly that:First nwr:
Message 13
But it is not wrong. Observed reality is data, but conventional science is willing to come to conclusions ABOUT data that falsify the word of God (the Bible). If it weren't willing to go there, it would be forced to seek other explanations than the ones that falsify the Bible, which is what YEC is doing. But I'm not talking about people who attack the Bible, I'm talking about those who subordinate it to science, and as long as science as an institution insists that its finds are inconsistent with what the Bible has traditionally been understood to say, the Bible is made subject to science. But this is to make God Himself subject to human science rather than science subject to God. Yes, and this, again, is human beings putting their own fallible interpretations of nature above what God has explicitly written as a guide. They are willing to let what they observe in nature falsify the word of God (the Bible) instead of realizing that it can't and looking for better interpretations. Yes, but this is changing the subject. I'm talking about the Bible, and they permit themselves to contradict the Bible's revelation, so my statement remains true. This too is changing the subject. My premise is that the Bible is the word of God, and the statement based on that premise remains true that science has no qualms about violating it. But the premise of my statement was that the Bible is the word of God, not the work of man, and not fallible, and my statement is correct based on that premise, that conventional science has no qualms about violating the word of God. Again, you are simply changing the subject. I already acknowledged that many people rationalize it away as not the word of God, but since it is, (or IF it is, if you prefer) science is directly contradicting God. This is simply a fact. The conflict was obviously present in Australian evangelical circles too, same as everywhere, as it is a real conflict between science and the Bible, only it was resolved there exactly as I have said conventional science resolves it -- that is, if science appears to contradict the Bible, the Bible is reinterpreted, God's word is made subject to science. For those who regard the Bible as God's inspired inerrant word, on the other hand, science is subject to God's word, and it is the scientific data that must be reinterpreted if there is a conflict.And Modulous' agreement with nwr:
Message 14
This confirms what I said. This is exactly how the Bible is made subject to God. Science has said one thing, so the Bible is reinterpreted to fit what science has said. The Bible was traditionally taught as the trustworthy word of God until modern man decided to reinterpret it in terms such as the above and reverse the order of authority, putting God's word on the bottom and science on the top, forcing God to yield to science when it is science that should be required to yield to God. You are willing to demote God's word instead of science, and this is the essential difference from a YEC, who treats science as subordinate to God's revealed truths in the Bible.I hope that since this is off topic, any further responses to it will be taken to another thread.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 08:14 AM

This could be an endless discussion but the arrogance is on the side of those who refuse to acknowledge God's own communication and prefer their own interpretation of His universe over what He actually said in actual words. This is what science is doing. It comes up with views of the universe that contradict God's written word, and then some dare to claim that that view IS God's word, which cannot be the case if it contradicts what He actually said through His prophets. I DO have the right to say what God Himself has said, because He said it, it's written, it is unambiguous, and I can point to it and quote it. It is my YEC premise, which is to be honored on this thread, as I have no interest in fighting this same old battle here over and over, that God's WRITTEN WORD trumps science if science contradicts it. This is to be RESPECTED on this thread at the very least.

You may be right, as I anticipated from the beginning, that there is absolutely no room here at EvC for the YEC point of view. It is considered to violate the foundations of science. That being the case it is a sham even to pretend to have debates with those who begin from the Bible, and YECs should be told this up front, even in fact warned not to bother coming here at all.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 09:52 AM

In fact I started out doing just that, and did not refer to the Bible at all, and no matter how consistent I was at sticking to the factual physical phenomena opponents would nevertheless accuse me of arguing from the Bible. Well, strictly speaking I was NOT arguing from the Bible, but the fact is that a YEC cannot operate from the premise that a strict reading of Genesis is falsifiable, and in the end I realize that has to be said up front. It is the reason for all the friction here at EvC, all the screaming rages about how YECs violate science. It is true, we do violate this supposedly scientific precept that one cannot have an unfalsifiable premise. We have an unfalsifiable premise: God has spoken and contradicting God is NOT an option. We violate YOUR standards, you violate ours. This is what I have been spelling out here. You are willing to contradict God's written word; a YEC will contradict anything science says over God's written word. Quite true, as I just affirmed. But the converse is also true: what vitiates the possibility of such a debate is the insistence of scientists that God's written word is falsifiable. Yes, science has defined all unfalsifiable premises as non-science, including the word of the God who made the universe they claim to be studying. There is absolutely no room here for the unfalsifiable written word of God and that is why the whole idea of an evo-creo debate is a sham. Exactly. As long as we abandon our fundamental premise and are willing to go against the God whose word we are here to apply to scientific questions, there is plenty of "room" for our view. But it is no longer our view, it has been subordinated to the current standards of Science. My goals are to defend the YEC point of view, which cannot be done if the very premises of the YEC point of view are denied me, and that is obviously the case here at EvC and it's time everybody acknowledged that up front.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 10:23 AM

But we are not discussing the classroom, we are discussing debate at EvC, and the fact is that the YEC premise is disallowed and that makes debate impossible. If the Bible must be treated as falsifiable then YECs should refuse to participate here. I should have recognized this and acted accordingly long ago. So, again, if my premise of an unfalsifiable literal inerrant Bible cannot be respected, debate is impossible.

That is true, which is what is finally being made explicit to the point that the pretense of debate is being exposed.However, this board is hosted by the science side and it is their job to make room for their opponents if they sincerely want to debate. But there cannot be genuine debate when the ground rules preclude the very premise of the opposition.The science side insists that God's own revelation is open to falsification by whatever evidence they think they have, which is often pretty paltry evidence -- such as the mere speculations of observers -- oh yes that is so, they are nothing more serious than Hutton's deduction that an unconformity *had* to have taken OE amounts of time to form, or the familiar one that the sequence of fossils "proves" evolution. Both determined by what? Scientific method? Experimental science? Testable hypotheses? Hardly. Sheer raw "Jeepers, it sure looks that way don't it?" Some "incontrovertible evidence" they are willing to say defeats the word of God Himself who made it all.Yes, this is a War between an Irresistible Force and an Immovable Object, except that one side of this stand-off is God Himself and the other side is human arrogance. I know Who is going to win in the end but in the meantime it would be nice if worshipers of the great god Science would get a clue.

Sorry, they had to be answered because they challenged the whole basis of my agreement for being here at all. This is far more important to me than anything having to do with this topic, as my initial post should have made clear. Perhaps their posts should have been deleted, because no way was I going to let them stand unanswered when they did not respond to my request that they take it to another thread. However, please leave everything undeleted to this point since I have answered them.I see you have posted something on the topic however, so I will take a look at that now.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:12 PM

That is correct and is exactly what I have been saying so there was no need for it to be said again. There is no possibility of God's word being wrong. That is bottom line. And the flimsy grounds on which science claims it is wrong make the chutzpah of Science even more outrageous. See my previous post to Rahvin Message 45.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:05 PM

All you are doing is reiterating the Establishment position, which is not in doubt, but is exactly what I'm saying makes debate here a ridiculous sham. Take any next comment you have to the other thread Ben started, YEC approaches to empirical investigation. I don't think you've bothered to try to digest what I've been saying about this here.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-12-2005 04:40 PM