My TE Challenge

[GrayCat]

Just stopping in to say to AV that i love his new User title below his name. It's funny. :-D

 

[Scienceman123]

Just stopping in to say to AV that I am horrified by his new User title below his name. It's tragic. :-(

Fixed that for you.

 

[GrayCat]

Fixed that for you.

Eh if you hang around here a lil longer, you'll soon get to know AV and actually enjoy reading his posts cause he actually is nice and sometimes funny (in my opinion)

Maybe it's a sign i've just given up debating with him. And not because I'm the one who's wrong in the debates.

 

[Scienceman123]

Eh if you hang around here a lil longer, you'll soon get to know AV and actually enjoy reading his posts cause he actually is nice and sometimes funny (in my opinion)

Maybe it's a sign i've just given up debating with him. And not because I'm the one who's wrong in the debates.

I enjoy his posts like people enjoyed Wesley Willis in the '90s.

 

[BrainHertz]

So science is validated by a non-scientific principle?

Good job too. Otherwise, according to your earlier posts, it would be circular and therefore all bollocks. Right?

 

[Tomk80]

It is interesting that in the last few posts, AV argues for a poetic interpretation of a text. On the other hand, when faced with another Hebrew poem (Genesis 1), he doesn't apply this criterium. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is interesting that in the last few posts, AV argues for a poetic interpretation of a text. On the other hand, when faced with another Hebrew poem (Genesis 1), he doesn't apply this criterium. Curiouser and curiouser.

Either that, or Genesis 1 isn't Hebrew poetry.

What I find curious is the fact that I'm the one explaining Hebrew poetry to those who claim Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry.

And, by the way, why wouldn't I "argue for a poetic interpretation of a text"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Good job too. Otherwise, according to your earlier posts, it would be circular and therefore all bollocks. Right?

I'll stick with my original point --- science validates science.

 

[Psudopod]

Science is a methadology. How do you validate a methadology with a methadology?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a methadology. How do you validate a methadology with a methadology?

With circular logic - of course.

4+3=7

Want botanical verification?

• 4 apples + 3 apples = 7 apples

Want astronomical verification?

• 4 light years + 3 light years = 7 light years

Want geological verification?

• 4 metamorphic rocks + 3 igneous rocks = 7 rocks

Want barometric verification?

• 4 millibars + 3 millibars = 7 millibars

Get my drift?

p.s. There are exceptions, though; mainly in the field of zoology.

• 4 lions + 3 gazelle = 4 lions

 

[Tomk80]

Either that, or Genesis 1 isn't Hebrew poetry.

According to Hebrew scolars, it's hebrew poetry. This is shown by the repeating phrasing of it and the structure of the text.

What I find curious is the fact that I'm the one explaining Hebrew poetry to those who claim Genesis 1 is Hebrew poetry.

I haven't looked into what you've written yet. Given your track record, though, you're probably wrong. It's kind of a hallmark of you to be wrong on almost everything you write, including biblical passages.

And, by the way, why wouldn't I "argue for a poetic interpretation of a text"?

I have no qualms with you arguing a poetic interpretation of the text. What I do have qualms with is your inconsistent application of interpretation, as well as your contention that you are taking the text literally.

 

[Mallon]

It strikes me that most evolutionary creationists around here don't post in this subforum. We usually post in Origins Theology. You might have better luck getting an answer there. Needless to say, we don't believe half of what some militant atheists/neocreationists here think we do.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to Hebrew scolars, it's hebrew poetry. This is shown by the repeating phrasing of it and the structure of the text.

QV PLEASE

I haven't looked into what you've written yet. Given your track record, though, you're probably wrong.

The existence of a credibility gap between you and me doesn't phase me one bit. I expect you guys to automatically deny everything I say, anyway; but when I say stuff that actually agrees with you guys, and you still whine, that bothers me.

 

[atomweaver]

The existence of a credibility gap between you and me doesn't phase me one bit. I expect you guys to automatically deny everything I say, anyway; but when I say stuff that actually agrees with you guys, and you still whine, that bothers me.

Heh. The reason for that is, even a blind nut can find a squirrel every once and a while...

 

[FishFace]

• The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
• There is no God, says the fool in his heart.

Oh, and here we were, thinking you were a literalist. When you start putting your own words into the Bible, it's guaranteed not inerrant.

 

[selfinflikted]

Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary, again?

Simple. It's necessary to AV because if the Gen 1 account isn't literally true, then that leaves room for other "stories" (i.e. the resurrection) to not be literally true as well. We can't have that, now can we?

 

[FishFace]

I'll stick with my original point --- science validates science.

I'll stick with disagreeing with you - the principle of induction validates science.

 

[Skavau]

I'll stick with my original point --- science validates science.

Pathetic.

People explain to you how science works and how it is not circular. You simply then choose to ignore these explanations.

 

[Tomk80]

QV PLEASE

Whatever AV
Especially your comment concerning parallels of ideas in hebrew poetry is shown very well in Genesis 1.

The existence of a credibility gap between you and me doesn't phase me one bit. I expect you guys to automatically deny everything I say, anyway; but when I say stuff that actually agrees with you guys, and you still whine, that bothers me.

You haven't said anything here that agrees with people who are atheists. You claimed that atheists worship nature, they don't. Claiming that the bible says they do can only be done by linking two completely different texts together in a way that is dubious.

If your interpretation here is exegetically sound, which I highly doubt given that you haven't demonstrated the linkage between the two books you use (ie, you haven't demonstrated that fools in one book is used the same way as fools in the other), the bible is quite clearly incorrect. That would leave you with an unhappy conclusion which you aren't willing to draw, in which case we again have all reason to disagree with you.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.htmlYou claimed that atheists worship nature, they don't.

Oh, I can even take that a step further too (and have), but I won't.

Believe me --- it's worse.