Presuppositions and axioms

[NearBr0ken]

The argument here is not about facts.  The argument here is the presuppositions we use to interpret the facts.  The evolutionist presupposes evolution to be true, therefore all facts presented naturally conform to their presuppositions.  The believer presupposes creationism to be true, therefore all facts presented naturally conform to their presuppositions.  To both parties, the evidence is blatantly obvious that their worldview is the correct one which, when one view or the other is presupposed, is true.  In eliminating the Bible as a source of fact, the atheist is at an obvious advantage from the start.  The Christian is unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts.  Believing the Bible as a basis for thought is necessary.  If an argument is based on false axioms, the argument may be true, but the facts false.  I.e.  Axiom:  The sky is red, not blue.  This axiom is false and anyone can debate why the sky is red, when in fact, the truth never changes and the argument is futile.  Processes such as natural selection and genetic drift do not conflict with the Bible as a presupposition to fact.

Basically:

-Using Biblical presuppositions in an argument is necessary.  You can not eliminate the presuppositions of the Bible without destroying one side of the argument totally, at which point, it's not an argument.

-If one's presuppositions are absolute, no amount of evidence will change their mind.

-All evolutionists are naturally presupposing that the supernatural does not exist when they enter the debate.  This presupposition must be abandoned for the argument to be fair.

[Pricia]

About your first point - the Bible is not supernatural. The reason I personally dislike biblical references is easy - it's so old nobody can assure that it's anything else than fiction. Not only that, but it's been translated so many times, there is no doubt that it lost its original meaning in the way. Heck with just one translation, you can change the meaning of something. That's why it makes no sense for some people to base their beliefs on it - if anything, they're basing their beliefs on the way the translator understood it. Just a bit disturbing when you think of it.

About your second point, well, I've personally yet to see any evidence of God's existence, but I've seen quite a bit about evolution.

About supernatural, I'm still undecided about it. But it doesn't necessary have anything to do with God.

[Will]

The evolutionist presupposes evolution to be true,

This is so wrong I nearly just passed out due to shock. Evolution has been tested again and again and again. It has been proven, through testing and verification, to be the best and most likely theory for the continuing development of life on Earth. The "evolutionist" takes these tests and verifications into account when considering something, but they do not presuppose that evolution is true. Presupposing anything to be true is fundamentally unscientific.

To both parties, the evidence is blatantly obvious that their worldview is the correct one which, when one view or the other is presupposed, is true.  In eliminating the Bible as a source of fact, the atheist is at an obvious advantage from the start.

The Bible must be proven to be a reliable source of fact before it is considered as fact. Those facts that are used in support of evolution are verifiable. The Bible cannot be verified as factual, therefore it cannot be presented as evidence.

Using Biblical presuppositions in an argument is necessary.  You can not eliminate the presuppositions of the Bible without destroying one side of the argument totally, at which point, it's not an argument.

"It says so in this old book" is not a logical argument, therefore you're right in that there never was an argument.

If one's presuppositions are absolute, no amount of evidence will change their mind.

Ah, the meat of the issue. "Evolutionists" do not have any absolutes. Everything is questionable, so long as the question is supported by evidence. If one were to discover evidence that directly contradicts evolution, and that evidence was tested (to verify it's authenticity), the theory of evolution would change. Science, by it's very nature, is ever changing and self correcting. Suggesting that anything in science is absolute is to ignore what science really is: an ever evolving understanding of the universe.

[McQ]

The argument here is not about facts.  The argument here is the presuppositions we use to interpret the facts.  The evolutionist presupposes evolution to be true, therefore all facts presented naturally conform to their presuppositions.  The believer presupposes creationism to be true, therefore all facts presented naturally conform to their presuppositions.  

Well, once again, Will is faster on the draw and says it correctly, but I have to re-state this vehemently. This is wrong! You are incorrect, NearBr0ken! Absolutely incorrect!
I know why you think this, and I thought exactly the same thing years ago, because I was in the position of fundamentalist christian believer, and I said the same thing. But I was wrong then, just as you are now. No science, not evolutionary science, biology, physics, chemistry...none of them, come with pre-suppositions that a certain thing is true. They start with observations of the world and form hypotheses to sort out the observations and then go through every way possible to disprove the hypotheses. Religion does exactly the opposite of this! It starts with the conclusion that there is a certain god and then goes through every possible permutation to keep that conclusion from being disproven.

To both parties, the evidence is blatantly obvious that their worldview is the correct one which, when one view or the other is presupposed, is true.  In eliminating the Bible as a source of fact, the atheist is at an obvious advantage from the start.  

The only reason the bible gets eliminated is because of three reasons.  1: it is not a science book and 2: it is not a science book ...take a guess as to what the third reason is!

The Christian is unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts.  Believing the Bible as a basis for thought is necessary.  If an argument is based on false axioms, the argument may be true, but the facts false.  I.e.  Axiom:  The sky is red, not blue.  This axiom is false and anyone can debate why the sky is red, when in fact, the truth never changes and the argument is futile.  Processes such as natural selection and genetic drift do not conflict with the Bible as a presupposition to fact.

Basically:

-Using Biblical presuppositions in an argument is necessary.  You can not eliminate the presuppositions of the Bible without destroying one side of the argument totally, at which point, it's not an argument.

-If one's presuppositions are absolute, no amount of evidence will change their mind.

-All evolutionists are naturally presupposing that the supernatural does not exist when they enter the debate.  This presupposition must be abandoned for the argument to be fair.

Not even going to touch this one. Just plain wrong. Yeesh.

[Will]

Well, once again, Will is faster on the draw and says it correctly

It's all a part of my evil plan:
1) Post faster than McQ
2) ?
3) Millions of dollars!  

[Evolved]

Oh, no, no, no, no no!

The evolutionist presupposes evolution to be true, therefore all facts presented naturally conform to their presuppositions.  The believer presupposes creationism to be true, therefore all facts presented naturally conform to their presuppositions.

Darwin did not start out with evolution as being a theory or even a hypothesis.  He brilliantly melded all of the observations that he made of natural phenomena into one cohesive scientific theory.  He did not presuppose evolution to be true.  In fact, at the time that he made his observations and for most of the time he was formulating his theory, he believed in god (or was agnostic at least).

To both parties, the evidence is blatantly obvious that their worldview is the correct one which, when one view or the other is presupposed, is true.

Please provide your definition of evidence, as it seems to differ from scientific evidence.  I have yet to see any evidence for god presented in a logical manner.

If one's presuppositions are absolute, no amount of evidence will change their mind.

You are right.  This is a big flaw in creationist thinking.  You said yourself that using biblical presuppositions in an argument is necessary.  Those presuppositions are absolute to theists.  True scientists have no absolutes.

[susangail]

The others above me have said it all.

To both parties, the evidence is blatantly obvious that their worldview is the correct one which, when one view or the other is presupposed, is true. In eliminating the Bible as a source of fact, the atheist is at an obvious advantage from the start.

The only reason the bible gets eliminated is because of three reasons. 1: it is not a science book and 2: it is not a science book ...take a guess as to what the third reason is!

Exactly!

* * *
One thing I just have to ask NearBr0ken, how did you become a Christian in the course of all this? Don't get me wrong, do whatever you want. I'm just curious. Your worldview was "atheist", then you changed it to "free-thinker", and now it's "Christian". I haven't been around the forum as much as I normally am so sorry if this has already been addressed...

[weedoch]

Is it just me or have we been over this ground again and again and again...  Good scientists don't come with presuppositions. Some bad ones do, and they are almost always discredited, as in the cases where research is funded by specific groups with a vested interest in the outcome. Perhaps there is a paper in testing the creation myths of every religion for their validity, but I do get a little impatient with Christians for their childish insistence that science and the bible are one and the same.

[susangail]

Perhaps there is a paper in testing the creation myths of every religion for their validity, but I do get a little impatient with Christians for their childish insistence that science and the bible are one and the same.

"Impatient" is putting it lightly for me. If the Bible is science, then so is the Koran, Book of Mormon, and the damn Iliad for that matter. Come on now, teaching creationism (ID, whatever) in science classes, I mean WTF?! (though that's a different thread...)

[Jolly Sapper]

I just realized how long this got.. sorry.   ).  Do you go out and rake up 1000 euros of credit the next day in expectation for this money?  I'll guess that you probably wouldn't, because you have no way of proving the truth of my claim until you actually get the money.  This is why superstition is not a factor in evolution, lots of promises without the payout.