On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[robrecht]

spin..... spin........ spin.......You attempted to set up a condition "if they want to prove"sets up the condition of what they should do if they want to prove. I don't care how long you wish to be dishonest about it - that s not debatable. Thats an attempt to set up a condition and citing references we should look at and what we should rebut and your condition of if we want to prove according to you puts you right in the discussion you said you were out of hours ago.

No, I've already told you that you're misinterpreting both of these points.

I can tell you are accustomed to trying to do mental gymnastics to get out of pinches you put yourself in but its not going to work with me.

You can go to labeling of fundie or angry now because I won't make you wiggle out of your duplicity but it won't work with me there either.

Theres no confusion because you proclaim there is. asking the reason why someone holds a position is part of a discussion on the issue. Again I do not care how you try to fudge it.

There's no duplicity.

[Mikeenders]

No, I've already told you that you're misinterpreting both of these points.

I've already proven my points om every logical level. Its not up for your vote or your friends vote. Of course you will say its a misinterpretation - thats spin 101

There's no duplicity.

Proven that point too. I had you wrong on one thing. You have no superior patience. You just want the last word so you keep posting even when you have no logical thing to post. and can't stand being wrong either (particularly to a "fundamentalist"). despite your claims otherwise you were gung ho on this discussion with verses and text until you realized "whole heaven" wasn't as iron clad as you swore it was and then magically the whole demeanor changed and it was a silly discussion

tsk tsk

[robrecht]

I've already proven my points om every logical level. Its not up for your vote or your friends vote. Of course you will say its a misinterpretation - thats spin 101

Proven that point too. I had you wrong on one thing. You have no superior patience. You just want the last word so you keep posting even when you have no logical thing to post. and can't stand being wrong either (particularly to a "fundamentalist"). despite your claims otherwise you were gung ho on this discussion with verses and text until you realized "whole heaven" wasn't as iron clad as you swore it was and then magically the whole demeanor changed and it was a silly discussion

tsk tsk

I never said anything was 'ironclad', let alone swore to it. Nor have you offered any proof whatsoever of dishonesty on my part.

[Mikeenders]

I never said anything was 'ironclad', let alone swore to it. Nor have you offered any proof whatsoever of dishonesty on my part.

"swore to it" is not "swore it was". Up the reading comprehension. one implies a verbal statement the other does not. I have offered and shown proof of your dishonesty no matter how you deny it . In no rational logical world can someone claim to be out of a discussion hours ago but trying to suggest reference materials for the discussion, giving links relevant to the discussion and citing what they think some party or parties in the discussion should rebut and setting conditionals on the discussion "if they want to prove" and still not be out of the discussion while doing so in the discussion.

Its ludicrous and no amount of spinning will get you out of it. and furthermore you continued to ask me what my reasons were for my position in the discussion and why I interpreted the passage this way in this text as opposed to another. In no world is that not continuing the discussion. That's exactly one of the things the discussion does entail.

[robrecht]

"swore to it" is not "swore it was".

Not sure what distinction you're trying to make here, but I also did not swear that anything was ironclad.

Up the reading comprehension. I have offered and show proof of your dishonesty no matter how you deny it . In no rational logical worlrd can someone claim to be out of a discussion hours ago but trying to suggest reference materials for the discussion, giving links relevant to the discussion and citing what they think some party or parties in the discussion should rebut and setting conditionals om the discussion "if they want to prove" and still not be out of the discussion while doing so in the discussion.

Its ludicrous and no amount of spinning will get you out of it.

You have not shown any dishonesty on my part. I am still trying to have a civil discussion with you, but I am not trying to debate your interpretation of the text. Nonetheless, I do find it interesting that defenders of both positions claim that that the authority of scripture is at stake.

[Mikeenders]

You have not shown any dishonesty on my part.

Well in the history of dishonesty not everyone caught being dishonest has had the character to admit it so there is not surprise at your denial of the obvious

Nonetheless, I do find it interesting that defenders of both positions claim that that the authority of scripture is at stake.

but that observation of yours magically has nothing to do with any on the text right? because um you are not touching any discussion of the text eh?



and i find it interesting that you not only picked those two sources, claimed it was just for us to look at but are now commenting on your impressions of them while not discussing them (no intellectual dishonesty there folks). I can show you many articles where no such claim is made (I mean if you ever were actually discussing anything about the text )

I am still trying to have a civil discussion with you,

and I offered long ago any discussion of texts given that the subject of this thread is scripture but you seem uninterested in anything that substantive.

Not sure what distinction you're trying to make here, but I also did not swear that anything was ironclad.

Dude when I said there was nothing in that passage you singled that out as the proof phrase. why because you thought it was noting? "Swore it was" is a colloquialism for when someone indicates they have confidence in what they are proposing . You didn't put it up because you thought it was a dubious or weak point.

[HMS_Beagle]

Not sure what distinction you're trying to make here, but I also did not swear that anything was ironclad.

According to Stinky Mikey you must be a lying liar who lies and who hates God and all Christians. You're probably 10 years old and a drunk too.

Just like every other person at TWeb who Stinky Mike has disagreed with.

[Mikeenders]

According to Stinky Mikey you must be a lying liar who lies and who hates God and all Christians. You're probably 10 years old and a drunk too.

NOt true..... I at no time ever indicated that all of Tweb was filled with beagle pup chewy sticks

[robrecht]

Well in the history of dishonesty not everyone caught being dishonest has had the character to admit it so there is not surprise at your denial of the obvious

What exactly do you think I've been dishonest about?

but that observation of yours magically has nothing to do with any on the text right? because um you are not touching any discussion of the text eh?

I am not debating your interpretation of the text. That seems pointless to me. Trying to understand your motivation and behavior still holds some interest for me.

and i find it interesting that you not only picked those two sources, claimed it was just for us to look at but are now commenting on your impressions of them while not discussing them (no intellectual dishonesty there folks). I can show you many articles where no such claim is made (I mean if you ever were actually discussing anything about the text )

and I offered long ago any discussion of texts given that the subject of this thread is scripture but you seem uninterested in anything that substantive.

Those two articles were just among the first few that turned up in a Google search. Neither one seemed worth reading beyond the fact that they both claimed that the authority of scripture was at stake for each position. The one by Ken Ham proclaimed such at the very start of the article. The other article did so a few sentences in if I recall. I'm sure many other discussions make no such claims.

[Mikeenders]

What exactly do you think I've been dishonest about?

Covered several times but you can add acting like it hasn't been to your ever increasing list

Those two articles were just among the first few that turned up in a Google search. Neither one seemed worth reading beyond the fact that they both claimed that the authority of scripture was at stake for each position.

At this point they are probably more worth reading than you trying to skirt around the fact you are engaging the text by commenting on articles about the text. are you planning any time soon to get on a substantive issue relevant to a thread about scripture or is your strategy to bore me to death?

[robrecht]

Covered several times but you can add acting like it hasn't been to your ever increasing list

At this point they are probably more worth reading than you trying to skirt around the fact you are engaging the text by commenting on articles about the text. are you planning any time soon to get on a substantive issue relevant to a thread about scripture or is your strategy to bore me to death?

There's no strategy other than trying to engage in civil conversation. The relevance to this thread is my trying to understand why some people feel a need to reconcile some stories in scripture with science.

[Mikeenders]

There's no strategy other than trying to engage in civil conversation. The relevance to this thread is my trying to understand why some people feel a need to reconcile some stories in scripture with science.

and your assumption they do so based on a feeling isn't going to be justified or denied until you get into a particular text. Again are you going to get into anything substantive before we all have grown old and died?

[klaus54]

NOt true..... I at no time ever indicated that all of Tweb was filled with beagle pup chewy sticks

How about most?

[klaus54]

and your assumption they do so based on a feeling isn't going to be justified or denied until you get into a particular text. Again are you going to get into anything substantive before we all have grown old and died?

Why do you feel the need to reconcile early Genesis with (modern) science?

[Mikeenders]

Why do you feel the need to reconcile early Genesis with (modern) science?

I don't because I don't find it at odds with real science