Summations Only

perhaps it all boils down to what we should be looking for. Strict Creationism starts with the premise that God exists, the Bible is His revelation, and the Creator wrote His name and signature on our hearts and on and in the rocks. Thus, one would seek evidence of such a signature. You seem to think that one-day such evidence will be found and we all will slap our heads in amazement and bow to the Creator joyfully and willingly---which for the sake of argument is theoretically possible. Currently, however, for folks like edge, the science that he was taught is his most reliable tool. He has little economic or spiritual incentive to change his approach to observations within nature when he has already invested so much of his life into learning the tried and true disciplines which are his very livelihood.

Imagine how a Creationist thinks, however. To them, there is a basic understanding of what is traditional secular science and what is a mystery. They see no fiction. They are searching for something that the secular scientist is not searching for nor has been trained to search for.They claim that secular science is blinded since the secular scientist sees no need to search any differently. The problem with their arguments is that they have no guidebook on how else to teach and show the secular scientists how to look. Edited by Phat, : spelling error

Perhaps she thinks that your proposed checklist of criteria is biased and not the only way to explain something.

Always keep the cartoon in mind---it summarizes the origin of her view: To her credit, she is quite good at attempting to provide facts to support her conclusion and belief. Rather than her admitting to ever being boxd in a corner, she likely would argue that her opponents refuse to seriously entertain her view and that she feels unfairly forced to consider theirs. She does not accept that the established premises within the scientific method should be the only ones allowed in such a discussion. Perhaps she can address this post in particular and ask us to respect her belief as an alternate view on par with scientific evidence.

I summarize by requoting from the 4 posts which I had here at this thread: I enjoy reading Faiths attempts at better expressing her understanding, though when the comments between her and others get personal it crosses a line of disrespect. Forum GuidelinesAs Faith is our lone creationist, we need to understand how her method of reasoning differs from secular science. The cartoon which I often use explains the argument fully, in my mind. Which is why these types of debates at EvC will always end the same.

The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person. Is this keeping discussion civil?I rest my case and I am out. See you all on the next thread...though before I promote any I would prefer that we state our respective positions and methodologies before the arguments even get started.