Changes

::Your insistence on eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]

::Your insistence on eyewitness reports is useless when everything is an eyewitness report. [[User:Order|Order]]

::: The claims of scientists regarding the Big Bang, fish turning into amphibians, dinosaurs into birds, and a whole host of other such claims are ''not'' eyewitness reports.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::: The claims of scientists regarding the Big Bang, fish turning into amphibians, dinosaurs into birds, and a whole host of other such claims are ''not'' eyewitness reports.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::You admitted before that scientific observations are eyewitness reports. It seem that you reject that scientist make any deduction from these observations. A crime scene investigator can come to the site of an accident and witness that a car is wrapped around a tree, but you don't want them to conclude from this that a car accident happened, because they didn't see it happen. This is no different from archaeologist arriving at an excavation site. I am not sure why you only want to accept eyewitness reports as evidence, and other kinds of evidence, but for the saker of argument lets assume that nothing can be assumed to have happened unless there is a first person account of the event.  

::::You admitted before that scientific observations are eyewitness reports. It seem that you reject that scientists make any deduction from these observations. A crime scene investigator can come to the site of an accident and witness that a car is wrapped around a tree, but you don't want them to conclude from this that a car accident happened the day before, because they didn't see it happen. This is no different from archaeologist arriving at an excavation site. I am not sure why you only want to accept eyewitness reports as evidence, and not other kinds of evidence, but for the sake of argument lets assume that nothing can be assumed to have happened unless there is a first person account of the event.  

:"''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]]  

::Yes, and they can claim this, because it is only correct given a certain interpretation rather than under a straightforward literal reading.[[User:Order|Order]]

::Yes, and they can claim this, because it is only correct given a certain interpretation rather than under a straightforward literal reading.[[User:Order|Order]]

::: No, they claim it because they want to find fault with the Bible.  I've seen so many absolutely ridiculous arguments... They are searching for any possible contradiction or discrepancy that they will argue from silence, read metaphor literally (and accuse us of being the literalists!), etc.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, they claim it because they want to find fault with the Bible.  I've seen so many absolutely ridiculous arguments... They are searching for any possible contradiction or discrepancy that they will argue from silence, read metaphor literally (and accuse us of being the literalists!), etc.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::Yes some apologist use flaky arguments, but there also genuine professional apologists who try to make a sound argument. What I object to is not your argument with respect to the bible quote, but your insistence to portray people who disagree with you as malicious. All people I have met that think about the subject, make genuine and honest effort to understand the world around them, and the bible is part of their world, and you are doing them unjust by assuming ulterior motives. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)  

::::Yes some apologist use flaky arguments, but there also genuine professional apologists who try to make a sound argument. What I object to is not your argument with respect to the bible quote, but your insistence to portray people who disagree with you as malicious. All people I have met that think about the subject, make genuine and honest effort to understand the world around them, and the bible is part of their world, and you are doing unjust in assuming ulterior motives. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)  

:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''":  Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God?  Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.

:"''...scientists do not propose a theory because they are evil, or because they don't like your god, but simply because they try to come up with the best explanation for the observations that they see.''":  Are you seriously claiming that atheistic scientists (i.e. the subset that is atheistic) have no motive to find explanations that exclude God?  Even evolutionists will admit that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God, and this was also the motive of people like Hutton and Lyell.

::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not travel around the world because he was angry with god, but because he was curious. He didn't propose his theory because he wanted to debunk the bible, but because lamarckism and catastrophism didn't explain what he saw very well.  

::Yes, this is exactly what I am claiming. You claim that scientists have as ulterior motives to bring down god. Darwin did not travel around the world because he was angry with god, but because he was curious. He didn't propose his theory because he wanted to debunk the bible, but because lamarckism and catastrophism didn't explain what he saw very well.  

::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]

::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]

::: Oh, where, pray tell, is it "incorrect"?  It does tell us how they were made; by God's Word.  I agree that it doesn't go into a lot of detail, but the question was whether or not it was incorrect.  It does say, in general terms, how many of the rocks were made—by a global flood.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::: Oh, where, pray tell, is it "incorrect"?  It does tell us how they were made; by God's Word.  I agree that it doesn't go into a lot of detail, but the question was whether or not it was incorrect.  It does say, in general terms, how many of the rocks were made—by a global flood.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::That they were made by his word, only tells you that it happened. With eyewitness account you typically require them to very specific on details that can be checked independently. What does Genesis say about the geology of the moon? Geology of the sun? Geology of earth. Can you give an eyewitness accounts of the sedimentation during the flood, and an eyewitness account of the formation of coal layers? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

::::That they were made by his word, only tells you that it happened. With eyewitness accounts you typically require them to very specific on details that can be checked independently. What does Genesis say about the geology of the moon? Geology of the sun? Geology of earth? Can you give an eyewitness account of the sedimentation during the flood, and an eyewitness account of the formation of coal layers? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:26, 5 December 2007 (EST)

:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.

:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.

:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''":  Which scientists are you talking about?  In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive.  That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.

:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''":  Which scientists are you talking about?  In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive.  That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.