Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

There are shared grounds. It's called presumption of, or possibly hypothesis of, something which is used as a embarkation point for showing how well the evidence fits the presumption/hypothesis. Uniformatism is a central plank in evolutionary thinking. It can't be demonstrated to have occurred yet ToE in founded on it. The only answer so far in justifying the presumption of uniformatism is "what else can we do if we are to progress?" This can hardly be described as a concrete foundation for subsequent argument. Why should such a monumnetal presumption as a starting point for your case be the sole preserve of you?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

"lifetime of the earth" is based on uniformist asssumption that the clocks we use to age the earth keep the same time they always have. If the earth was very young then the processes which laid down coal, diamond etc would be very different to the processe which we observe are happening today. If the clock ran much much faster earlier (as the principle of entrophy would indicate they did) then no time for evoltution to occur."No significant variation" is a bootstrap argument only made possible by the presumption of uniformatism as an arbitarily determined starting point. Is extreme uniformatism as valid a presumption as uniformatism? IF not why not? And if so, on what basis do you disallow some presumptions and accept others? Spot the uniformist presumption nested within the comment above... No old earth - no evolution. Uniformatism is an essential foundation for (I'd warrant) many branches of evolutionary science. Chiroptera recently in giving a good thumbnail sketch of the logic behind biological evolution and in doing so said something like "FACT: animals produce more young than are needed for the immediate survival of the species". This may be true today but in inserting this into his argument he was utilising a presumption of uniformatism. That the same situation has always been the case.My question is what is wrong with Faith using undemonstrable presumption in forming her argument when it's okay for you to do so?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Okay, what tests or observations support uniformatism over the lifetime of the earth which don't rely on a prior presumption of uniformitism? Reliable science during which uniformitism could be measured is about 100 years old. The earth is supposedly 4,5 billion years old. The data for 'your' uniformitism is 1/45,000,000 of the total, ie: a single dot on a graph. On what objective basis do you base your extrapolation. You need some basis on which to stand before you can determine another basis to be false - surely? Read it again. The assumption isn't hidden. It says x billion years ago and analyses the nuclear reaction times based on what precisely? Logically, given powerful enough hind legs and a desire to do so, cows could jump over the moon. We aren't dealing logically here, we're dealing practically. The mechanisms described for evolution eg: rate of genetic mutation requires x amount of time to occur. If the world were younger you could say that genetic mutations occured more rapidly previously, but you would have no observational/scientific basis for saying so. That strand of 'evidence' would dissolve. Would it not? What would these consequences be then (ie: without presuming uniformitism ie: what it would mean in todays world). "Rationally supportable assumptions". What is the rationale? Remember, Uniformatism is the bedrock. Using results which are based on the presumption that the presumption is correct can't be used in evidence supporting the presumption. That would be a bootstrap argument.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Seems many around here think no. Science relies at every root on something which isn't...and eventually if you go back far enough.. cannot be known. Science doesn't provide truth it provides tentitive. Science can only approach truth - never reach it - because presumption always forms a core part of it. Approaching is good though - we get on fine in many areas without absolute truth. But if you want absolutely true answers to questions you'll have to look elsewhere - science cannot help you.Or so it would seem...

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

The reason science has so little to say about what happens to a person after death is that is recognises that there is no way to apply scientific method to the subject. Here we have the most inescapable facts of human existance and we can say nothing about what happens a person after physical death. Science can't presume anything about it. All Science can do is to remain mute on the subject.There is no way to know whether things happened as they do today throughout all history - because there is nothing against which to calibrate our instruments. I know a lot of folk make a good living and get a lot of enjoyment from it but if their instruments are uncalibrated, what absolute value the measurements?By all means presume and develop your science on the basis of it but before dismissing anothers presumption (and their science) provide some objective basis for your own. By asking for compelling reasons as to why uniformatism shouldn't be considered you put the cart before the horse. You claim it - you gotta back it up. That you have some philosophical reason such as "it's rational" and "we've no reason to suppose otherwise.." is not objective. This wouldn't matter if the science which is said to arrive out of the presumption wasn't said to be objective. But it is. You don't build objective on the foundation of an unobjective philosophy however.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

You presumably have some objective evidence of this. Stats 'n stuff. Some objective standard against which your summation can be analysed. Or is your position (as so often transpires to be the case) merely a philosophical one?

I'm not an expert on any of these things but:Is space and time known absolutely to be linear as we understand it? Is it absolutely true that the earth goes around the sun or is it just that our current convention (or current common sense) indicates so? Just like common sense some centuries ago made people think the earth was flat...If I jumped from a high building I think I'd have other things on my mind than....SPLAAT!! My premature contact with terra firma didn't occur because there was anything wrong with the formula, in the limited sense that these formula can be applied. But I was under the impression that these formula are not absolutely correct in all circumstances. If not they are not absolute.I can't see how science can comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer. That would pre-suppose that objective/empirical is the only way to know - which is a philosophical position - not truth.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Must remember that line of defence next time someone asks me to back up my assertion that God exists. Is is uncommonly clever. The insertion of sorrow - an emotional state - into the equation is the killer punch. Like, if someone is in that deep emotional state on anothers behalf it just wouldn't be cricket to cause him even more discomfort. It'd be like kicking a puppy who rolled over on his back for you I'll let you off. But only this once okay

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

There's a couple of verses buried in Romans which kind of answers all this. Romans 1:16-17 "I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe. For in the Gospel, a righteousness from God is revealed which is from faith to faith...". (that by the way, is (i)faith, the highway along which belief travels enabling knowledge based (ii)faith - not Faith the debater )These verses (which incidently caused Martin Luther to suddenly 'get it' and led to the Reformation) is what causes Christians to enter into debates like this.a) Not ashamed of the Gospel. If a Christian is certain of the Gospel then all the slagging and insults and ridicule are by and large so much water off a ducks back. Any frustration comes out of despair - that the person with whom you debate doesn't 'get it'. Although many will see it as misguided meddling - it's their good we're after.b) The key part is that it is the Gospel which does the business not the person presenting it. Clever argument (were that in any way accepted to occur) isn't what causes a person 'to turn'. The Gospel (which has the power of God behind it) does. Debate is merely a vehicle for the Gospel. Call it subliminal advertising if you like. Now, have a look at the signature at the bottom of this post. Read it. Actually read it. Can you see anything about your behaviour getting you to God. Nope? Good. You've just read a bit of the Gospel. It is now in your brain. Forever. You may turn, you may not. But if you do, the Gospel is what will have done it.And if you do turn, do look me up in heaven will ya?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Ah CD go easy there. Let he who has not made a brash statement out of frustration etc. cast the first stone. I could understand Brian frustration dealing with Christians given the amount of time he seems to have debated them. He will of course never get an answer on his own terms, so it's understandlable that we can be seen to be evasive and obtuse.What would Jesus do here (and I don't mean his "white washed tombs" statement)?

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Hi DBI've just read Admins warning on the direction of this thread so will have to end on uniformatism. Am becoming aware of my tendency to pull topics off topic. Some other time thus...Sorryiano

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Hoi ParasomniumWill have to haul off-topic stuff to a halt. Admin warning on the direction of this thread noted.GroetjesIano

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Sorry NWRAdmin warning on thread direction. Another day on this off-topic topic perhaps.Forgive the last-wordism here but it's hard to resist ...is an absolute statementThis message has been edited by iano, 15-Sep-2005 10:39 AM

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This of course being the logic of a Dutch person who lives in a land where, at least in 1997 when I lived there, they had the unusual situation where roundabouts (circles of varying diameters around which you drive to take one of a number of choices of exits) could be dealt with in one of two ways:a) The motorist approaching the roundabout had right of way and the person on the roundabout had to yield right of way to themb) The motorist on the roundabout had right of way and the person approaching the roundabout had to yield right of way to those navigating itIn order for the motorist to know which one was which he had to keep his eyes peeled approaching the roundabout for a sign as to which type he was encountering (and hope that the local hooliganary hadn't twisted the sign edge on so as to make accurate forecasting as speculative as is evolution science)Somehow, I think the Brits (and the Irish) had the more logical of the two systems...

Hmmm... may I press a little further on the relative merits of Dutch/UK reason in asking whether you still employ that peculiar toilet design which is seemingly unique to Hollandia? (For those who have never been a (somewhat stomach-churning) description follows)Externally, the typical Dutch toilet looks remarkably similar to UK/US versions. That is until you lift the lid. If you are used to seeing the steeply sloped sides of the bowl culminating in a 5"x3" target into which solid deposits can be dropped only to be instantly and effectively smothered by an odor-encapsulating volume of water then a surprise you will surely get.In place of the water-target/efficient odour trap, the Dutch, for reasons best known to themselves, have provided a platform. A raised platform. A large raised platform, well above the water-line in fact. The water trap itself is cunningly positioned well out of the target area and to the front. I say cunning, because no matter which way you contort yourself you cannot deposit anywhere but onto the platform. Thus you are forced to undergo the appalling odour that would otherwise remain unknown to you as pull neck muscles in a frantic attempt to reach behind you from the sitting position to trigger the even more cunningly designed press-to-flush button. I say cunning here, because to a Dutch toilet-designer, the word 'flush' means flush-mounted - ie: don't let the device protrude from the suface in such a way as to make it easy to locate.If you find yourself in a Dutch w/c you will often see a box of matches in there too. For good reason. The Dutch have found a partial solution to a problem of their own making. Striking a match and waving it around clears (although I never figured out how) the odour and leaves the toilet smell-free for the next poor unfortunate visitor.p.s. Tayto are going to the wall. The mighty Walkers Crisp from England are taking over the market - survival of the fittest style. Guinness Dublin however have vanquished the English sister-brewery in return. The draught Guinness in Holland tasted like the English stuff (awful) so if you like an odd pint of it you can look forward to some at a pub near you soon...

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."