Changes

::::::With your restricted interpretation of eyewitness account, I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account. Much of it is a third person narrative, for a start.  But I can already imagine that your reply will then refer to Moses, etcetera. But that would be sophistry, and as I said before I really do feel like going repeating much of the history of apologetics. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::With your restricted interpretation of eyewitness account, I could easily argue that the biblical account cannot be an eyewitness account. Much of it is a third person narrative, for a start.  But I can already imagine that your reply will then refer to Moses, etcetera. But that would be sophistry, and as I said before I really do feel like going repeating much of the history of apologetics. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: Even where the account was not witnesses by its human authors, it was witnesses by God, the ultimate author of the Bible, so it still ''all'' qualifies as eyewitness account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::: Even where the account was not witnesses by its human authors, it was witnesses by God, the ultimate author of the Bible, so it still ''all'' qualifies as eyewitness account.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::In this case it wouldn't be an eyewitness account but an ego document. But, if it under a literal interpretation the books were written by Moses, who lived at some later stage, and was definitely no eyewitness. So, in the end it is just a 3rd person account. Anyway, I am not sure why you keep insisting on discussing these kind of details. I am happy to engage in the intellectual game about who of use can come up with a smarter interpretation of the bible, but it strikes me as pointless. I'd rather prefer that you'd address my actual question, if and why you are so angry with those scientists. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::In this case it wouldn't be an eyewitness account, but an ego document. But, under a literal interpretation the books were written by Moses, who lived at some later stage, and was definitely no eyewitness. So, in the end it is just a 3rd person account written way after the fact. Anyway, I am not sure why you keep insisting on discussing these kind of details. I am happy to engage in the intellectual game about who of us can come up with a smarter interpretation of the bible, but it strikes me as pointless. I'd rather prefer that you'd address my actual question, if and why you are so angry with those scientists. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:"''From you wording it seems like you take  personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''":  What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.

:"''From you wording it seems like you take  personal offense at scientists developing theories that contradict your reading of the bible.''":  What I object to is the scientists who didn't witness past events claiming superiority over God who did witness those events.

::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]]  

::What you demand of these scientists is to subject themselves to your beliefs, even though they do not share your beliefs. [[User:Order|Order]]  

::: No, but I expect them to recognise and acknowledge that they are ''beliefs'', not ''scientific facts'', and therefore not claim, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Bible is wrong.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, but I expect them to recognize and acknowledge that they are ''beliefs'', not ''scientific facts'', and therefore not claim, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the Bible is wrong.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::Most will be happy to concede that your statements are "beliefs" and not "scienitifc fact". Isn't it you who doesn't distinguish between belief and scientific fact? Anyway, what gives you the right to demand from them to not present scientific theories that oppose you beliefs? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::Most will be happy to concede that your statements are "beliefs" and not "scienitifc fact". Isn't it you who doesn't distinguish between belief and scientific fact? Anyway, what gives you the right to demand from them to not present scientific theories that oppose you beliefs? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I do distinguish between belief and "scientific fact", but I reject that things like evolution are scientific fact: they are belief, but although they, as you say, will be happy to "concede" ("claim" would be more accurate) that my statements are beliefs, they won't admit this of their own statements.  I'm not rejecting their right to propose scientific theories that oppose my beliefs.  I'm rejecting their right to propose atheistic beliefs as scientific facts.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::::: I do distinguish between belief and "scientific fact", but I reject that things like evolution are scientific fact: they are belief, but although they, as you say, will be happy to "concede" ("claim" would be more accurate) that my statements are beliefs, they won't admit this of their own statements.  I'm not rejecting their right to propose scientific theories that oppose my beliefs.  I'm rejecting their right to propose atheistic beliefs as scientific facts.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:54, 6 December 2007 (EST)