"I'm not an expert, BUT......."

[Split Rock]

Because you haven't really look at it yet.

Oh , but I have. Nonsense and misinformation posted on the internet by "creation scientists," "creation ministry" pastors, ID advocates, and creationists like yourself. I mean, you don't even understand what "logic" is in the first place. How can you possibly be correct?

I saw two students. One studied a lot and studied very hard. One barely studied. But the hard-working one can not compete with the smart one in test. And I have seem many labs work very hard only to make junk data. They should not start the work at the first place. Quantity does not mean correct. Professional interpretation, in fact, is usually wrong at the end.

So, is biblical interpretation usually wrong?

 

[Split Rock]

OK. Can any of you creationists give us an answer to the O.P.? So, far Juvie has posted that creationists have a different type of "logic." and therefore to convince them, we would have to use their "logic." This would seem to imply that creationists have to use our "logic" to convince us they are right. This would seem to be an impossible task.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not a scientist -- did you think I was?

Sorry, juven, you're going to have to find someone else to try to prove your own greatness with.

What a surprise. I honest think you are one. OK, you are excused.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What a surprise. I honest think you are one.

I'm happy you're impressed.

OK, you are excused.

You're not.

 

[juvenissun]

Oh , but I have. Nonsense and misinformation posted on the internet by "creation scientists," "creation ministry" pastors, ID advocates, and creationists like yourself. I mean, you don't even understand what "logic" is in the first place. How can you possibly be correct?


So, is biblical interpretation usually wrong?

I suspected that when I was exposed to the Scripture in my early years. However, unlike you, I kept the question, instead of rejected It. As I learned more sciences (not more Bible), what the Scripture says becomes more and more correct. Now, It is amazingly (magically) correct to me.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm happy you're impressed.



You're not.

Tell you what, I am begging for challenge at all time. Unfortunately, I don't see much in CF.

There were a few good ones in genetics. Unfortunately, my database on that is too lean.

 

[Split Rock]

I suspected that when I was exposed to the Scripture in my early years. However, unlike you, I kept the question, instead of rejected It. As I learned more sciences (not more Bible), what the Scripture says becomes more and more correct. Now, It is amazingly (magically) correct to me.

I asked whether biblical interpretation is usually wrong, not whether the bible is wrong. Since there are at least as many interpretations of scripture as there are denominations (more really), the answer should be obvious... no? The real question I suppose, is are any of them correct?

 

[Naraoia]

You are confusing correlation with causation. Science will teach you that the genetic makeup of people has just as much, if not more, to do with intelligence. Also, there is no such thing as junk data from research.

Why not? If your study design is junk, it can't be that hard to get useless data out of it

Hey, proud scientist. Raise a scientific issue, and see me beat you to the ground solely based on science.

That has to be the funniest thing I've read in weeks.

 

[roach]

Why not? If your study design is junk, it can't be that hard to get useless data out of it .

Ya know what they say, one man's trash,...!

 

[Non sequitur]

So called experts in science have been proven wrong all the time. Shall we look at how often Science has been wrong in the last 3500 years. Yet the Bible continues to be true.

If by "continues to be true" you mean, "is, literally, still here", then ok.

If not, what does this "continues to be true" mean?

 

[juvenissun]

I asked whether biblical interpretation is usually wrong, not whether the bible is wrong. Since there are at least as many interpretations of scripture as there are denominations (more really), the answer should be obvious... no? The real question I suppose, is are any of them correct?

The essential one: the Gospel, is not subjected to interpretation. You either accept it or does not.

If you accept the Gospel, then the rest are, indeed, subjected to interpretation. The important thing is: the interpretation which make sense to you IS the correct one. Other interpretations are subjected to debate. However, the one sounds right to you at the very moment is the most important.

If you do not accept the Gospel, then the rest are certainly meaningless to you.

 

[juvenissun]

OK. Can any of you creationists give us an answer to the O.P.? So, far Juvie has posted that creationists have a different type of "logic." and therefore to convince them, we would have to use their "logic." This would seem to imply that creationists have to use our "logic" to convince us they are right. This would seem to be an impossible task.

Almost.

Except that if I argue with your logic, then the best I can do is to argue that your criticism to creation is not necessary right, or is wrong. Since I am not arguing within my logic system, I would certainly have harder time to prove that I am right.

That is the reason I try to bridge the gap with one argument: if evolution is wrong, then creation is right by default.

 

[Skavau]

That is the reason I try to bridge the gap with one argument: if evolution is wrong, then creation is right by default.

Not really. Evolution doesn't address creation.

 

[juvenissun]

Ya know what they say, one man's trash,...!

Yes, one can use those junk data to promote global warming.

 

[juvenissun]

Not really. Evolution doesn't address creation.

I guess you are new and haven't heard my argument.

IF, evolution is wrong, then you would find that nothing can explain the origin of current world. Nothing.

Of course, Except the Creation.

So, if you want to argue on this issue, then assume evolution is wrong, then try to find and describe a substitute system. If you can not, then you lose the debate.

 

[Skavau]

I guess you are new and haven't heard my argument.

IF, evolution is wrong, then you would find that nothing can explain the origin of current world. Nothing.

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the world. That is beyond its scope.

So, if you want to argue on this issue, then assume evolution is wrong, then try to find and describe a substitute system. If you can not, then you lose the debate.

I think some UFO cults would like a word with you.

 

[juvenissun]

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the world. That is beyond its scope.


I think some UFO cults would like a word with you.

This is a common reply. It only shifts the question. You still need to think about the evolution of the aliens.

 

[Skavau]

This is a common reply. It only shifts the question. You still need to think about the evolution of the aliens.

They had a different type of evolution completely unknown to us and 'alien' (no pun intended) towards the evolution we espouse.

It's complete speculation of course, but no more less likely than a supernatural agent creating us.

 

[Non sequitur]

Almost.

Except that if I argue with your logic, then the best I can do is to argue that your criticism to creation is not necessary right, or is wrong. Since I am not arguing within my logic system, I would certainly have harder time to prove that I am right.

That is the reason I try to bridge the gap with one argument: if evolution is wrong, then creation is right by default.

False dichotomy.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I guess you are new and haven't heard my argument.

IF, evolution is wrong, then you would find that nothing can explain the origin of current world. Nothing.

Of course, Except the Creation.

Of course, except the creation myths of literally hundreds of cultures throughout history.

Creation Myths - A Large and Diverse Collection of Links to Creation Myths from Around the World - creation myth,creation myths,creation mythology,creation myths from around the world,creation myths from different cultures,creation story,creation sto

Turtles all the way down, baby.

So, if you want to argue on this issue, then assume evolution is wrong, then try to find and describe a substitute system. If you can not, then you lose the debate.

Perhaps if you focused more on making a point, and less on telling people when they lose, you'd be more knowledgeable on the subjects you debate about.