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

You're looking at this as if there's "right" and "wrong". If there's "right" and "wrong" here, then you're right--EVERY ISSUE will be a piss-poor debate.When you have willingness to listen to other ideas, then the point is to encourage common methodologies in investigation. Clearly science has proven to be a methodology that CANNOT be shared in many instances. I think simple reasoning CAN be a mechanism.Don't judge a "crackpot". I think in your eyes, the vast majority of the population has always, throughout history, held "crackpot" views. What makes you so certain things are different now?To be certain is to end the debate. Whether the certainty is justified or not, I simply don't see any utility in the approach.I know. Let's work towards it. But as you admitted, we're dealing mostly with non-scientific people here. We can't impose scientific criteria at every turn. We have forums for that kind of thing. If we want to allow people to think on their own, to have some room to ATTEMPT to make things work, we have to open things up. That's what this board is for in my view. For those who are satisfied with "goddidit" for any explanation, there is no debate anyway. This forum is for those who WANT to think and explore.How many "goddidit"'s someone will be comfortable with in making an explanation is a personal decision. The point here, in my eyes, is simply to make explicit how the pieces connect together, how you get from creationism to modern scientific observation. Make explicit where you're putting your hand-waving, and see if you're comfortable with that. If so, so be it; maybe others (lurkers) would be convinced , maybe not. If not, can we find a solution? I disagree. The scientific method is a slow, useful manner of theory verification and building. It's like evolution.But often theory building goes outside of science, it starts in places far less restrictive and more creative, more exploratory.Not everything is science. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means it doesn't follow scientific methodology, and shouldn't claim to. "Pseudoscience" has a very derogatory meaning, and so isn't appropriate. Furthermore, it shouldn't be trying to masquerade as science like normal pseudoscience does. Exactly. We're having the same discussion as a year ago... with no examples. Let's get this on. I really have little interest in "debating" it's usefulness, especially with someone who is willing to see it in action.Ben

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.

How about this - we duplicate the thread in the TC&I forum as a experiment to see how the debate would differ?

PaulK,That's right inline with how I think about things.Ben

To my mind that makes this forum useless. Which is probably why it hasn't been much used.

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.

Usually what I consider stupid is the scientific case made on the science topics -- the latest example being the belief that a stack of fossils in discrete sedimentary layers has anything to do with genetic descent or vast eras of time.I don't even know what "theological" case I might have that I'd want to make. What's interesting is the scientific challenges.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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 ?

This is a great place for you to present those models that YECs might use to explain the evidence seen. Some that would be Great candidates might be the YEC models for:

• fossil sorting.
• allele transmission.
• the layers of the Grand Canyon.
• Continental Drift.
• how kolas and other marsupials got to Australia.
• the distance to stars and galaxies.
• why there was no interruption of civilization or construction in Egypt during the alleged flood.
• Jamon Pottery.
• the Topper site.
• how the Appalachians were formed and worn down.

So there is a short list for you to work on. We would all be interested in seeing the models that YECs use to explain any of those and once they can be presented, we can go on to look at any of the thousands of other issues that need to be addressed before the YEC position could be taken seriously.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Theological case for what? Perhaps it should be obvious but I have no idea what you have in mind.

There is no way to discuss those things without considering the usual scientific questions, and the consensus here seems to be that if the science is discussed it doesn't belong in this forum.

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.

It is very hard if not impossible for me to separate out my Biblical views from the scientific views that are used to challenge it, which require scientific answers. I can't even imagine how I would do that. Even if I reject mainstream scientific conclusions, that certainly doesn't mean I reject the applicability of science to the question.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't see reading thins thread where that is the concensus, only that here would be a place where you can post even though you understand that doing so means that you realize it is impossible to get around the weight of evidence available on the science side.The evidence remains and remains just as found regardless of whether or not you can explain it. Granted, providing your models here as opposed to a thread on the Science side is conceeding that you know the position is unsupportable when compared to the normal explanation, but who knows, perhaps you can at least show that there is some theological explanation.For example, looking at the Grand Canyon we find a whole series of layers. Many of the layers are built up of smaller materials, sand, clays, mud, that must have been produced through weathering of larger structures. Then there are those places where there are signs of erosion and weathering between layers, where part of the material is worn away before more is laid down.Maybe you can provide us with the YEC model that explains how those layers were formed, how the transitions from buildup to wear down happened, how large grained materials got laid down over fine grain materials and how all the other little things like fossils were placed in the layers.You have always had two options. One is to actually try to support your position with Science. That is still an option for you. Here though you could try to use other models, to show that YEC models too can explain what is seen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion