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

Yes, exactly. The point is that the Biblical Creationist positions can only stand when they ae unchallenged. They cannot stand up scientifically, theologically or in any other forum. Only when they can be presented in isolation do they have any chance of acceptance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Perfectly silly assessment of the situation considering that creationists are regularly suspended for failing to meet the science assumptions. We're a minority here and that's the only reason our assumption doesn't get any recognition. We are constantly judged by YOUR assumption instead. This forum was supposed to be Equal Time, unrealistically, considering the situation, but that was the idea.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

I don't see how your idea of theological argument would be any different than what already goes on in the Bible Accuracy forum or any of the endless theological arguments between YECs and liberal Christians and others elsewhere. No need for another thread for that purpose.And if jar's view is considered valid, there simply is no need for this forum at all. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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

The problem is that there is no dearth of that sort of debate at evc already.

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

You are not only free to make the best possible case for your point of view, you are encouraged to do so.Make your case. Present your best arguments. So far all that I have seen is "Regardless of the evidence Faith will not believe it if it does not fit within her theology."That isn't a very compelling argument.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I happen to be a Creationist. I believe that GOD created everything. I also realize though that it can never be more than a personal belief. It is not something which can be decided scientificly or this side of the grave.That does not in anyway preclude Science. The study of Science I believe is letting us actually look at the workings of GOD. When we study the TOE my reactions is "So that's how She did it!"The more I learn about this universe the more in awe of GOD I become.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Does a particular topic come to mind?

I think this is it. I see this forum as the place where creationists can try to solve theoretical discrepencies between creationism and current scientific theory.I think in Galileo's time, most people would have scolded Galileo for searching for non-religious explanations for the world. They would have held it logical and obvious that certain things about the world are explained, and explained by God. If Galileo had listened, he wouldn't have succeeded.Galileo was a crackpot in his time. 99.9% of crackpots are crackpots. 0.1% of them are geniuses. We allow people to choose to be mainstream, or to be a crackpot. This is the place where the crackpots can go, to try and see if they're truly crackpots, or if they're geniuses.I think discussion here should flow the same as it does in the science forums, with the exception of the suspension of 'parsimony' as an argument.If creationists can come up with theories that answer as many questions as scientific theories do, at least we will have an explicit statement of the contingencies of their beliefs. Those who do not yet believe can consider those contigencies. Those who have chosen not to believe can better understand the grounds on which their neighbors choose to stand. And those who believe can better appreciate how difficult good, solid theory-building is, can become more practiced in logical and critical thinking, and can appreciate the power in current scientific theory.In this way, I think it's useful.

quote:

---

We allow people to choose to be mainstream, or to be a crackpot. This is the place where the crackpots can go, to try and see if they're truly crackpots, or if they're geniuses.

---

That's the Showcase you are describing isn't it? The problem with "crackpots" is that they are immune to argument and rational discussion - they ARE right. That's great if it's the 0.01% you are dealing but it's awfully pisspoor debate at the level we are working at.

quote:

---

If creationists can come up with theories that answer as many questions as scientific theories do, at least we will have an explicit statement of the contingencies of their beliefs.

---

That's never happened - not using any process of scientific discovery/experimentation/method/methodolgy that I am aware of. Creation scientists don't practice science - we can argue the toss about it all day, they just don't. All they do is come up with negative reasons why existing theories are wrong. They conduct no experiments, they do not engage in the peer review process. There is a reason for this - Creation science is a political movement, it is not a scientific one.Your other problem is that you will never get explict statements - take KINDS as an example. Creationists will tell you they have a explict position on what they are, but you'll never see it, you'll just get waffle and hand-waving. Every "explicit" piece of creation science always relies on an element of "lastthursdayism" - it's bunk.

quote:

---

Those who do not yet believe can consider those contingencies.

---

I don't understand what's to consider once you rule out "lastthursdayism" and "goddunitsomehow" - every single creation theory I've seen relies on at least one or maybe both of those.The other problem with this concept of theory generation is that most of the creationists here either don't understand enough about science to discuss it or do understand it but are unable to intergrate it into their thinking in any rational way (because of the discomfort it causes them). The most common response is just ad-hoc reasoning followed by a sidedish of "well it makes sense to me".

quote:

---

And those who believe can better appreciate how difficult good, solid theory-building is, can become more practiced in logical and critical thinking, and can appreciate the power in current scientific theory.

---

Again this does not and will not happen - in theory, this should already happen on the main science boards but we all know it does not.If we want to discuss Pseudoscience - let's not give the forum a mealy mouthed title, just call it the pseudoscience forum and be done with it.Having said all that - let's see a thread and get a better grasp of how this would work, then all the naysayers like me can be proven wrong.

Look more carefully at what Percy wrote: The primary focus of the "science side" is to investigate the claim that Creation Science can be considered legitimate science. That is why there is the rule that you cannot bring in the Bible because then the position gets thrown out by default.It becomes an issue when a number of posters wanted to claim that YECism is TRUE but not necessarily science. That had no place in the science forum because science does not care about The Absolute Truth (R). Since The Absolute Truth (R) is not necessarily scientific, it is okay to admit that the basis for your version of TAT(R) is the Bible and therefore bring it into the discussion is okay. You are still by default though admitting that it is not science. This also does not guarantee that any regard will be held for such a view other than it is allowed as part of the argument.Therefore your comment of... ...is just plain wrong. The Bible only has more credence in TC&ID forum in that it is not eliminated by the rules of the debate. It does not dictate anything nor is it any kind of authority other than to those who choose to misinterpret it to fit with their particular often non-Biblical creation myths.The only differnce between TC&ID and any of the science forums is simply:"...because the Bible says..." is fundamentally incompatable with the science forums
"...because the Bible says..." is not necessarily incompatable in TC&IDThat DOES NOT MEAN that it is given ANY more weight or considered in ANY higher regard.Edited by Jazzns, : Horrid grammar

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Allelic variants: Simple refutation of "Kinds"I think this thread is a good candidate for the "Theological Creationism and ID" board. I think it's pretty clear that there's an inconsistency between modern science and the flood story, and some resolution of that needs to be explored.I think the "Theological Creationism and ID" board is the place for such explorations.

See if PS is willing to have it moved into the handwaving forum - then PS and Faith can see where they go with it.Edited by CK, : No reason given.