1,523
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + + + Line 100:
Line 103: + Line 164:
Line 168: + +
no edit summary
::::: I find your explanation for putting quotes around "science" hard to accept. If you were using it just for "science" in this context, I'd understand, but that doesn't explain why you also put them around "scientists".
::::: I find your explanation for putting quotes around "science" hard to accept. If you were using it just for "science" in this context, I'd understand, but that doesn't explain why you also put them around "scientists".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::I'm going to combine my literal/allegorical interpretation response below. As for why would they reject a reliable source: if you were to reject Newton's laws, and start from observation and the scientific method, you would still result in deriving Newton's laws. If creation scientists can't reject the Bible and still conclude it is correct, how do they know it is even an accurate resource? They have faith that it is, but faith is not science. And despite the fact that we are talking about history, you can use science to investigate history. You can't determine everything with 100% certainty (at least until we invent time travel), but you can certainly get a good idea of what is happening.
:::::I don't care if you find the explanation hard to accept; this entire discussion you have been interpreting everything I say in the most difficult possible way. How hard is it to understand that if one studies "science" they are a "scientist?" If you buy it for one you must buy it for the other, otherwise you are just being argumentitive. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
== Failure to include information ==
== Failure to include information ==
:::::: The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors. In ''some'' cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".
:::::: The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors. In ''some'' cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Again you are being difficult. I am obviously not a Biblical historian so why in the world are you giving me such a hard time about trying to recall the date of Genesis from memory? I remembered the 1000, so I thought 10th century. And all your arguing still doesn't change the meaning of my statement. And it's an insult to my intellegence to assume that I think you can physically look at the earth and see it's 4.54 Ga old. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.
First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.
::::: The reason that people care is simply because the secular (man-made) ideas on the origin and age of the universe, the Earth, life, etc. are in conflict with the biblical account, and many people therefore (correctly) choose one over the other, and (incorrectly) choose to reject the Bible, with the result (if they don't change their mind) that they reject the gift of salvation. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/291 here].
::::: The reason that people care is simply because the secular (man-made) ideas on the origin and age of the universe, the Earth, life, etc. are in conflict with the biblical account, and many people therefore (correctly) choose one over the other, and (incorrectly) choose to reject the Bible, with the result (if they don't change their mind) that they reject the gift of salvation. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/291 here].
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm going to gracefully bow out before this just turns into an exercise in mud-slinging. Philip, you are interpreting what I say in whatever way suits your purposes, and frankly it's insulting to me. I have responses to all of your newest arguments, but I don't see why I should even bother, since you will just twist them around, or subtly change your own arguments. I talked to my dad last night (who was a Methodist minsister) and he finally answered the theology for me. I'm confident in my interpretation of the Bible and that's good enough for me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)